Skip to main content

Full text of "North Carolina courts : annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts"

See other formats


X /3 

/C/ : /97l/7? 



C-<Zs 



NORTH CAROLINA STATE LIBRARY 
RALEIGH 

Norttf Carolina Courts 

13T8-T3 



N. C. 
Doc. 



MAT 3 1980 




Annual Report 

of ttje 

Administratis ©ffice of XX\t Courts 



The Cover: The Rutherford County Courthouse, in Rutherfordton, North Caro- 
lina, was completed in 1926. It is a stately Renaissance Revival building faced with a 
smooth stone veneer. Interior renovations have been minimal and many of the 
original features and materials survive. 



Worth Carolina State Library 
Raleigh 



/ 5 
> 






NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 



1978 - 79 




ANNUAL REPORT 



of the 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 




ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

JUSTICE BUILDING 

RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 



To The Honorable, The Chief Justice of 
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 

In accord with Section 7A-343 o\~ the North Carolina General Statutes I hereby transmit the 
Fourteenth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 
1, 1978 - June 30, 1979. 

Some significant changes in format and content are reflected in this year's report. First, the report 
is on a fiscal year rather than calendar year basis. This permits a presentation of case data and other 
information about the Judicial Department on the same time period used to report appropriations 
and expenditures for the Judicial Department as well as for State government generally. Also, the 
fiscal year format will permit us to have available more timely reports for the consideration of the 
annual sessions of the General Assembly. In content, more emphasis is given to narrative, with the 
view o\~ better serving the varying needs of different users of the report and placing in sharper focus 
an overall perspective of Judicial Department activity. 

Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compila- 
tion, and presentation process required to produce this annual report. Within the Administrative 
Office of the Courts, principal responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division 
and the Systems Division. Among court officials, the principal burden of reporting the great mass 
of trial court data rested upon the offices of the clerks of superior court located in each of the one 
hundred counties of the State. Without the daily, responsible work of clerk personnel across the 
State, this report would not have been possible. 

It is my hope that the annual report, for this and succeeding years, will make a contribution to 
better understanding and support for continued improvement of North Carolina's system of courts. 

Bert M. Montague 
Director 

February 15, 1980 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 



http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1979nort 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Parti 
The 1978-1979 Judicial Year In Review 

The 1978-1979 Judicial Year In Review 



Part II 

Court System Organization and Operations 

Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 5 

The Present Court System 9 

Organization and Operations in 1978-79 

The Supreme Court 13 

The Court of Appeals 15 

The Superior Courts 19 

The District Courts 25 

District Attorneys 29 

Clerks of Superior Court 33 

Public Defenders 35 

Administrative Office of the Courts 36 

The Judicial Planning Committee 41 

The Judicial Council 43 

The Judicial Standards Commission 45 



Part III 
Court Resources 

Judicial Department Finances 

Appropriations 47 

Expenditures 50 

Receipts 52 

Distribution of Receipts 53 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 56 

Judicial Department Personnel 63 



Part IV 

Courts Caseload Data 

Appellate Division Caseload Data 67 

Superior Court Division Caseload Data 73 

District Court Division Caseload Data Ill 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

Part II 
Court System Organization and Operations 

Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the 

Present Court System 8 

Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina 

Trial Courts 11 

The Supreme Court of North Carolina 12 

The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 14 

Map of Judicial Divisions and Districts 17 

Judges of Superior Court 18 

Superior Court Case Filings and Dispositions, 1975-79 20 

Superior Court Cases Pending at Year End 1 975-79 20 

District Court Judges 23 

District Court Case Filings and Disposition 1 975-79 26 

District Court Cases Pending at Year End 1975-79 26 

District Attorneys 28 

Clerks o\" Superior Court 31 

Organization of the Administrative Office of the Courts 36 

The Judicial Planning Committee 41 

The Judicial Council 43 

The Judicial Standards Commission 44 



Part III 
Court Resources 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 47 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 48 

General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of all 

State Agencies and Department, 1974-79 49 

General Fund Expenditures for Judicial Department 

Operations, 1974-79 51 

Judicial Department Receipts, 1974-79 52 

Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures collected by the 

Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 54 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 57 

Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 58 

Categories of Assigned Counsel — Numbers of Cases and 

Expenditures by County 59 

Judicial Department Personnel 63 



Part IV 

Courts Caseload Data 

Types of Cases Before the Supreme Court 68 

Types of Petitions Before the Supreme Court 69 

Supreme Court Caseload Summaries, 1977-78 and 1978-79 70 

Caseload Trends in the Superior Courts, 1969-1979 74 

Filings and Dispositions in the Superior Court Division 75 

Caseload Summaries for Civil Cases in the Superior Courts 76 

Caseload Trends of Civil Cases in the Superior Courts, 

1969-1979 79 

Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases in the Superior Court 80 

Methods of Disposition of Superior Court Civil Cases 83 

Ages of Civil Cases in the Superior Courts 84 

Caseload Summaries for Estate and Special Proceedings 

Cases in the Superior Courts 89 

Caseload Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings, 1974-79 92 

Caseload Summaries for Criminal Cases in the Superior 

Courts 93 

Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases in the Superior Courts, 

1969-1979 96 

Felonies and Misdemeanors in the Superior Courts 97 

Manner of Disposition of Criminal Cases in the Superior 

Courts 98 

Methods of Disposition of Superior Court Criminal Cases 101 

Ages of Felony and Misdemeanor Cases in the Superior Courts 102 

Caseload Trends in the District Courts, 1971-1979 112 

Filings and Dispositions in the District Court Division 113 

Caseload Summaries for Civil Cases in the District Courts 114 

Caseload Trends of Civil Cases in the District Courts, 

1971-1979 117 

General Civil, Domestic Relations, and Civil Magistrate 

Cases in the District Courts 118 

Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases in the District 

Courts 119 

Methods of Disposition of District Court Civil Cases 124 

Ages of Civil Cases in the District Courts 125 

Age Breakdown of Civil Cases Pending on 

June 30, 1979 130 

Offenses and Conditions Alleged in Juvenile 

Petitions in the District Courts 131 

Adjudicatory Hearings for Juvenile Cases in the 

District Courts 1 34 

Caseload Summaries for Criminal Cases in the 

District Courts 137 

Caseload Trends of Criminal Cases in the District Courts, 

1971-1979 140 

Motor Vehicle and Non-Motor Vehicle Cases in the District 

Courts 141 



in 



Manner of Disposition of Motor Vehicle and Non-Motor 

Vehicle Cases in the District Courts 142 

Methods of Disposition of District Court Criminal 

Cases 147 

Ages of Motor Vehicle and Non-Motor Vehicle Cases in the 

District Courts 148 

Rankings for the 33 Judicial Districts Based Upon Percent of 

Dispositions to Total Caseload 1 56 

Rankings for the 100 Counties Based Upon Percent of 

Dispositions to Total Caseload 157 



IV 



PARTI 



THE 1978-1979 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



■ .'_>. 



■ 



■ 




H^^HB 






THE 1978-79 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



Annual Report Format and Content 

This annual report covers North Carolina Judicial 
Department operations for the 1978-79 fiscal year, dif- 
fering substantially in format and content from prior 
annual reports, which were on a calendar year basis. 

Changing to the fiscal year period, July 1 through 
June 30, offers two distinct advantages. First, the time 
period on caseload data and analysis can now corres- 
pond with the time period for reporting on appropria- 
tions and expenditures. Second, the annual report for 
the immediate past year can be compiled, printed and 
distributed before or early during the legislative ses- 
sions of each year instead of (as in the past) usually 
after the legislative sessions have adjourned. For exam- 
ple, the latest annual report available to the 1979 Legis- 
lative Session was for calendar year, 1977, inasmuch as 
the 1978 calendar year report was not completed and 
available for distribution until after the Legislature had 
adjourned. 

A recommended "State Court Model Annual Re- 
port" was distributed in 1979 by the National Center 
for State Courts and the Conference of State Court 
Administrators as a part of a continuing effort to 
develop a national data base of state court statistics 
and to assist in the improvement of annual reports on 
state courts throughout the country. This recommend- 
ed model was used as a guide in the production of this 
annual report. 

Beginning with the 1976 Annual Report on the Judi- 
cial Department, North Carolina's reporting of trial 
court case data has been much more comprehensive 
than in previous years. The revised system of trial court 
data reporting begun in 1976 is described in the Intro- 
duction to the 1976 Annual Report on North Carolina 
Courts. This current report differs from the past three 
Annual Reports largely in presenting significantly more 
narrative comment so as to provide a better overall 
State perspective of Judicial Department activity. 

In the interest of clarity and convenience for readers, 
this Report is divided into four major parts, separated 
by a divider page of the same color as the cover. Part I 
consists of the "judicial year in review" statement. Part 
II provides information on the historical development 
of North Carolina courts, description of the present 
court system and a summary review of organization 
and operations during 1978-79. Part III covers court re- 
sources: appropriations and expenditures during 
1978-79 and summary information on the categories of 
personnel which serve in the Judicial Department. Part 
IV contains detailed caseload data and comment for 
both the trial courts and the appellate courts. 

As is apparent, the basic approach in format is to 
present a "broad perspective" of court system organi- 
zation and operations, proceeding then to a more de- 
tailed data presentation. The objective is to meet well 



the varying needs of different users of the Annual 
Report. 

Whatever progress is reflected in this year's Report 
will hopefully be the foundation lor still further im- 
provements in succeeding annual reports. 



The Workload of the Courts 

During 1978-79 there were some substantial increases 
in the workload of North Carolina's courts, at appel- 
late and trial court levels. As set out in more detail in 
Part IV, the number of cases docketed in the Supreme 
Court increased 8.1%; the number of opinions filed by 
the Court increased 9.5%; the number of petitions 
docketed increased 46.3%; and the number of petitions 
allowed by the Supreme Court increased by 20.8%. 

With respect to the superior courts, a total of 68,625 
cases (civil and criminal) were filed during 1978-79, a 
5.9% increase over the total of 64,819 cases filed during 
calendar year, 1978. A total of 65,899 superior court 
cases were disposed of during 1978-79, an increase of 
6.8% over the total ol~ 61,713 cases disposed of during 
calendar year, 1978. For year-end pending cases, the 
total at the end of 1978-79 was 35,184, representing a 
2.8% reduction from the total of 36,214 cases pending 
at the end of calendar year, 1978. More detailed data 
on superior court civil and criminal caseloads is pre- 
sented in Part IV of this Report. 

For the district courts, filings of cases decreased 
slightly (less than one percent) during 1978-79 com- 
pared with calendar year, 1978, as did dispositions: a 
total of 1,402,518 for 1978-79 compared with 1,407,360 
for calendar year, 1978. The number of district court 
cases, civil and criminal, which were pending as of June 
30, 1979 was about one percent greater (244,922) com- 
pared with the number (242,920) pending at the end of 
calendar year, 1978. As the more detailed data in Parts 
II and IV of this Report show, the trend in district 
court case activity over the past several years reflects a 
significant increase. The slight decrease in current year 
total case activity is not regarded as necessarily indica- 
tive of a trend which will hold. 

It is important to note that civil case filings in the 
district courts during 1978-79 increased almost six per- 
cent, and the number of civil cases pending at year-end 
rose more than 1 1% over the prior year. The principal 
decrease in district court filings during 1978-79 was in 
the traffic offense category. This decrease (2.4%) in 
traffic cases is undoubtedly related to recently reported 
trends in the operation of private automobiles as re- 
flected, for example, in decreasing state gasoline lax 
revenues. The higher costs of gasoline appear to be 
prompting automobile owners to drive less than they 
would otherwise, and at lower speeds. Whether the de- 
creases in traffic case activity in the district courts dur- 



THE 1978-79 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



ing 1978-79 reflect a trend for this category of cases 
which will hold during the next few years remains to be 
seen. Obviously, if private automobile use decreases, or 
does not continue to increase as in the past, the volume 
of traffic offenses which will come before the district 
courts in the State will be affected. 

Legislative Highlights 

Constitutional Amendments 

By the required three-fifths vote in each house, the 
Legislature approved a proposed amendment to the 
State Constitution, to be voted on statewide at the gen- 
eral election in the Fall of 1980, which provides that 
only a person who is authorized to practice law in the 
State will be eligible for appointment or election to a 
judgeship. Under the present State Constitution a non- 
lawyer can serve as a judge in any of the courts, appel- 
late as well as the trial courts. Non-lawyers have not in 
the past been appointed or elected to the Supreme 
Court, the Court of Appeals, or the superior court. 
Eight non-lawyers have been elected district court 
judges; but any non-lawyer sitting judge would be ex- 
empted from application of the proposed constitutional 
amendment under a "grandfather clause." 

A proposed constitutional amendment providing for 
"nonpartisan merit selection" of judges failed to gain 
the necessary three-fifths legislative approval for sub- 
mission to a statewide vote. 

Censure or Removal of a Supreme Court Justice 

The statutes pertaining to the Judicial Standards 
Commission were amended to provide that if the re- 
spondent is a member of the State Supreme Court, the 
recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission 
will go to the Court of Appeals for action instead of to 
the Supreme Court. In such case, the Chief Judge and 
the six senior judges on the Court of Appeals, exclud- 
ing any judge serving on the Judicial Standards Com- 
mission, would act on the recommendation of the Judi- 
cial Standards Commission. 

Court Studies 

The General Assembly reestablished the North Caro- 
lina Courts Commission which will have a continuing 
responsibility to review court organization and opera- 
tion issues and submit recommendations for improve- 
ment. Five members of this Commission are appointed 
by the Governor, five by the President of the Senate, 
and five by the Speaker of the House. The Legislature 
also gave this Commission four specific study assign- 
ments: consideration of administrative adjudication of 
traffic cases in lieu of initial filing of such cases in the 
district courts; a study of the offices of the Clerk of 
Superior Court and the position of trial court adminis- 



trator; and a study of the feasibility of making financial 
settlement to persons convicted and imprisoned whose 
terms of imprisonment are later shown to have been 
legally erroneous. 

The Legislative Research Commission (an agency of 
the General Assembly) was directed to study the laws 
of evidence with the view of proposing an evidence 
code for the State; and the Criminal Code Commission, 
appointed by the Attorney General and responsible for 
studies in the criminal law and procedure area, was di- 
rected to study the defense of insanity in criminal cases. 
Reports on these matters are to be presented to the 
1981 General Assembly. 

Additional District Court Judges 

Nine additional district court judges were authorized 
by the General Assembly, one each in the following 
judicial districts: 1st, 3rd, 4th. 5th, 13th, 14th. 26th, 
27B, and 29th. 

Presumptive Sentencing Law 

A presumptive sentencing law (G.S. 15A- 1340.1 et 
seq.) was enacted by the 1979 General Assembly, to be 
applicable to felonies committed on or after July 1, 
1980. The act divides felonies into 10 classes and sets a 
presumptive sentence for each class other than those 
for which the death penalty or life imprisonment is 
mandated by statute. The sentencing judge must im- 
pose the presumptive sentence unless he gives written 
reasons for the court record for not doing so. However, 
unless otherwise expressly provided by statute for a 
particular offense, the judge retains full discretion to 
suspend a prison term, impose probation supervision, 
sentence a defendant as a youthful offender or impose 
consecutive terms for multiple offenses without giving 
reasons. 

In imposing a prison term for a felony conviction, 
the sentencing judge may consider any relevant miti- 
gating or aggravating circumstance; and he must con- 
sider the following factors: (1) aggravating - in com- 
mitting the offense the defendant inflicted bodily injury 
or property damage substantially in excess of the mini- 
mum required to prove the offense, or the defendant 
induced others to participate in the offense or provided 
leadership of others in committing the offense; (2) miti- 
gating — defendant had no prior criminal record or a 
record only of minor misdemeanors, defendant inflict- 
ed minimum bodily injury or property damage, was a 
passive participant or had a minor role, suffered from a 
mental or physical condition not sufficient to constitute 
a defense but which significantly reduced his culpabil- 
ity, the defendant was of such age or limited mental 
capacity as to be substantially lacking in sound judg- 
ment, or defendant had made partial or full restitution 
to the victim of the crime. Further, the sentencing 



THE 1978-79 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



judge is required to take into account a negotiated plea 
and any circumstance arising from the evidence which 
is found by the judge to have mitigating value. 

Second Grand Jury Authorized 

Section 1 5A-622 of the North Carolina General Stat- 
utes was amended to authorize the senior resident su- 
perior court judge in a district to expedite criminal 
prosecutions by impaneling a second grand jury in any 
county of the district, to sit concurrently with the regu- 
lar grand jury. 

First Appearance on Felony Charge 

Section 15A-601 of the General Statutes was amend- 
ed to provide, effective October 1, 1979, that the clerk 
of superior court may conduct the first appearance pro- 
ceeding for one charged with a felony if a district court 
judge is not available within the 96-hour period re- 
quired by statute. 

Revised Juvenile Code 

Relevant to the jurisdiction and authority of district 
court judges in juvenile matters, and to the responsibili- 
ties of juvenile court counselors, the General Assembly 
enacted a new Juvenile Code, based upon a report of 
the Juvenile Code Revision Committee which was es- 
tablished by the 1977 General Assembly. The new code 
(G.S. 7A-516 et seq.) becomes effective on January 1, 
1980. 



Jurisdiction of Magistrates 

The jurisdiction of magistrates in small claims cases 
was increased from $500 to $800, and the jurisdictional 
amount involved in worthless check charges heard by 
magistrates was increased from $300 to $400. These 
changes were made effective October I, 1979. 



Appropriations 

State funds were appropriated for the following addi- 
tional positions in the Judicial Department: nine dis- 
trict court judges; 18 assistant district attorneys; 12 
magistrates; 86 deputy clerks; two court reporters; one 
investigatorial assistant for a district attorney office: 
four attorneys and two secretaries for the prehearing 
unit of the Court of Appeals; a trial court administra- 
tor and secretary for each of ten judicial districts; 10 
assistant public defenders, five stenographers and one 
investigator for Public Defender offices: an executive 
director, investigator, and secretary for the Judicial 
Standards Commission (to replace LEAA-funded posi- 
tions). 

In addition, funds were appropriated to raise juror's 
pay after five days of jury duty from $8 to $30 per day, 
and to increase grand jurors' pay from $8 to $12 per 
day. Judicial Department personnel received an ap- 
proximate 7% cost-of-living salary increase, compar- 
able to that provided for other State personnel. 



PART II 



COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION 
AND OPERATIONS 

• Historical Development of Court System 

• Present Court System 

• Organization and Operations in 1978-79 



■BS^HHHIUIHII 




HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



From its early colonial period North Carolina's judi- 
cial system has been the focus of periodic attention and 
adjustment. Through the years, there has been a repeat- 
ed sequence of critical examination, proposals for re- 
form, and finally the enactment of some reform 
measures. 



Colonial Period 

Around 1700 the royal governor established a Gener- 
al (or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute 
developed over the appointment of associate justices. 
The Assembly conceded to the King the right to name 
the chief justice but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself 
the power to appoint the associate justices. Other con- 
troversies developed concerning the creation and juris- 
diction of the courts and the tenure of judges. As for 
the latter, the Assembly's position was that judge ap- 
pointments should be for good behavior as against the 
royal governor's decision for life appointment. State 
historians have noted that "the Assembly won its fight 
to establish courts and the judicial structure in the 
province was grounded on laws enacted by the legisla- 
ture," which was more familiar with local conditions 
and needs (Lefler and Newsome, 142). Nevertheless, 
North Carolina alternated between periods under legis- 
latively enacted reforms (like good behavior tenure and 
the Court Bill of 1746, which contained the seeds of the 
post-Revolutionary court system) and periods of stale- 
mate and anarchy after such enactments were nullified 
by royal authority. A more elaborate system was 
framed by legislation in 1767 to last five years. It was 
not renewed because of persisting disagreement be- 
tween local and royal partisans. As a result, North 
Carolina was without higher courts until after Indepen- 
dence (Battle, 847). 

At the lower court level during the colonial period, 
judicial and county government administrative func- 
tions were combined in the authority of the justices of 
the peace, who were appointed by the royal governor. 



After the Revolution 

When North Carolina became a state in 1776, the 
colonial structure of the court system was retained 
largely intact. The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Ses- 
sions — the county court which continued in use from 
about 1670 to 1868 — were still held by the assembled 
justices of the peace in each county. The justices were 
appointed by the governor on the recommendation of 
the General Assembly, and they were paid out of fees 
charged litigants. On the lowest level of the judicial sys- 
tem, magistrate courts of limited jurisdiction were held 
by justices of the peace, singly or in pairs, while the 
county court was out of term. 



The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the Gener- 
al Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of 
Law and Equity. A court law enacted a year later au- 
thorized three superior court judges and created judi- 
cial districts. Sessions were supposed to be held in the 
court towns of each district twice a year, under a sys- 
tem much like the one that had expired in 1772. Just as 
there had been little distinction in terminology between 
General Court and Supreme Court prior to the Revolu- 
tion, the terms Supreme Court and Superior Court 
were also interchangeable during the period immediate- 
ly following the Revolution. 

One of the most vexing governmental problems con- 
fronting the new State of North Carolina was its judi- 
ciary. "From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary 
caused complaint and demands for reform." (Lefler 
and Newsome, 291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, con- 
flicting judge opinions, and insufficient number of 
judges, and lack of means for appeal were all cited as 
problems, although the greatest weakness was consid- 
ered to be the lack of a real Supreme Court. 

In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court 
judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court or Con- 
ference to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the 
districts. This court was continued and made perma- 
nent by subsequent laws. The justices were required to 
put their opinions in writing to be delivered orally in 
court. The Court of Conference was changed in name 
to the Supreme Court in 1805 and authorized to hear 
appeals in 1810. Because of the influence of the English 
legal system, however, there was still no conception of 
an alternative to judges sitting together to hear appeals 
from cases which they had themselves heard in the dis- 
tricts in panels of as few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 
1818, though, an independent three-judge Supreme 
Court was created for review of cases decided at the 
Superior Court level. 

Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in 
each county were made mandatory in 1806, and the 
State was divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the 
six judges were to sit in rotation, two judges constitut- 
ing a quorum as before. 

The County court of justices of the peace continued 
during this period as the lowest court and as the agency 
of local government. 

After the Civil War 

Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make 
it more democratic were made in 1868. A primary 
holdover from the English legal arrangement - - the 
distinction between law and equity proceedings — was 
abolished. The County Court's control of local govern- 
ment was abolished. Capital offenses were limited to 
murder, arson, burglary and rape, and the Constitution 
stated that the aim of punishment was "not only to sat- 
isfy justice, but also to reform the offender, and thus 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COl'RT SYSTEM 



prevent crime." The membership of the Supreme Court 
was raised to five, and the selection of the justices (in- 
cluding the designation of the chief justice) and super- 
ior court judges (raised in number to 12) was taken 
from the legislature and given to the voters, although 
vacancies were to be filled by the governor until the 
next election. The Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions 
the County Court of which three justices of the 
peace constituted a quorum — was eliminated. Its judi- 
cial responsibilities were divided between the Superior 
Courts and the individual justices of the peace, who 
were retained as separate judicial officers with limited 
jurisdiction. 

Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 
Constitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme 
Court justices to three and the Superior Court judges 
to nine. The General Assembly was given the power to 
appoint justices of the peace, instead of the governor. 
Most of the modernizing changes in the post-Civil War 
Constitution, however, were left, and the judicial struc- 
ture it had established continued without systematic 
modification through more than half of the 20th cen- 
tury. (A further constitutional amendment approved by 
the voters in November, 1888, returned the Supreme 
Court membership to five, and the number of superior 
court judges to twelve.) 

Before Reorganization 

A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising 
demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily 
encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time 
systematic court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. 
This accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the 
court system was most evident at the lower, local court 
level, where hundreds of courts specially created by 
statute operated with widely dissimilar structure and 
jurisdiction. 

By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent 
major reforms was begun, the court system in North 
Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme 
Court, with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior 
court, with general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statu- 
tory courts of limited jurisdiction, and (d) justices of 
the peace and mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction. 

At the superior court level, the State had been divid- 
ed into 30 judicial districts and 24 solicitorial districts. 
The 40 superior court judges (who rotated among the 
counties) and the district solicitors were paid by the 
State. The clerk of superior court, who was judge of 
probate and often also a juvenile judge, was a county 
official. There were specialized branches of superior 
court in some counties for matters like domestic rela- 
tions and juvenile offenses. 

The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher 
of these local court levels were more than 180 recorder- 
type courts. Among these were the county recorder's 



courts, municipal recorder's courts and township re- 
corder's courts; the general county courts, county crim- 
inal courts and special county courts; the domestic 
relations courts and the juvenile courts. Some of these 
had been established individually by special legislative 
acts more than a half-century earlier. Others had been 
created by general law across the State since 1919. 
About half were county courts and half were city or 
township courts. Jurisdiction included misdemeanors 
(mostly traffic offenses), preliminary hearings and 
sometimes civil matters. The judges, who were usually- 
part-time, were variously elected or appointed locally. 
At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and 
some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had simi- 
lar criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties 
up to a $50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the 
peace also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These 
court officials were compensated by the fees they exact- 
ed, and they provided their own facilities. 

Court Reorganization 

The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revi- 
sion of the court system received the attention and sup- 
port of Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who 
encouraged the leadership of the North Carolina Bar 
Association to pursue the matter. A Court Study Com- 
mittee was established as an agency of the North Caro- 
lina Bar Association, and that Committee issued its 
report, calling for reorganization, at the end of 1958. A 
legislative Constitutional Commission, which worked 
with the Court Study Committee, finished its report 
early the next year. Both groups called for the structur- 
ing of an all-inclusive court system which would be 
directly state-operated, uniform in its organization 
throughout the State and centralized in its administra- 
tion. The plan was for a simplified, streamlined and 
unified structure. A particularly important part of the 
proposal was the elimination of the local statutory 
courts and their replacement by a single District Court; 
the office of justice of the peace was to be abolished, 
and the newly fashioned position of magistrate would 
function within the District Court as a subordinate 
judicial office. 

Constitutional amendments were introduced in the 
legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required 
three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were 
reintroduced and approved at the 1961 session. The 
Constitutional amendments were approved by popular 
vote in 1962, and three years later the General Assem- 
bly enacted statutes to put the system into effect by 
stages. By the end of 1970 all of the counties and their 
courts had been incorporated into the new system, 
whose unitary nature was symbolized by the name. 
General Court of Justice. The designation of the entire 
20th Century judicial system as a single, statewide 
"court," with components for various types and levels 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OE THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



of caseload, was adapted from North Carolina's earlier 
General Court, whose full venue extended to all of the 
17th Century counties. 

After Reorganization 

Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization 
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has contin- 
ued. In 1965, the Constitution was amended to provide 
for the creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It 
was amended again in 1972 to allow for the Supreme 
Court to censure or remove judges upon the recom- 



mendation of a Judicial Standards Commission. As for 
the selection of judges, persistent efforts have been 
made in the 1970's to obtain legislative approval of 
amendments to the State Constitution, to appoint 
judges according to "merit" instead of electing them by 
popular, partisan vote. The proposed amendments 
have received the backing of a majority of the members 
of each house, but not the three-fifths required to sub- 
mit constitutional amendments to a vote of the people. 
It seems likely that this significant issue will be before 
the General Assembly again for consideration. 



Major Sources 

Battle, Kemp. P. in Address on the History oj the Supreme Court (Delivered in 1888). I North Carolina Reports 835-876. 

Hinsdale, C.E. County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition. 

Lefler. Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome. North Carolina: The History oj a Southern State. 1963 Edition. 

Sanders, John L. Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute ol Government. 

Stevenson. George and Ruby D. Arnold. North Carolina Courts oj Law and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular l l )73 



ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONS AND ROUTES OF APPEAL IN THE 
PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



i 

Recommendations 
from Judicial }• 
iStandards Commission' 



Original Jurisdiction 
All felony cases; civil 
cases in excess of $5,000 



, . , 

Decisions of 
i most administrative J 
i agencies i 

i i 




COURT OF 
APPEALS 

12 Judges 



Original Jurisdiction 
Probate and estates, 
special proceedings 
(condemnations, adoptions, 
partitions, foreclosures, 
etc.) 



Clerks of Superior 
Court 

(100) 



DISTRICT 
COURTS 

127 Judges 



Magistrates 

(589} 



S ®. 



N 



r , 

Decisions ol Utilities 

Commission. Industrial 

Commission, Insurance 

Commissioner, and 

N.C. Stale Bar 

l_ I 



Original Jurisdiction 
Misdemeanor cases not assigned 
to magistrates; probable cause 
hearings; civil cases $5,000 
or less; juvenile proceedings; 
domestic relations; 
involuntary commitments 



Original Jurisdiction 
Accept certain misdemeanor 
guilty pleas; worthless check 
misdemeanors $300 or less; 
small claims $500 or less 



(1) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in Utilities Commission general rate cases, cases involving con- 
stitutional questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may re- 
view Court of Appeals decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance. 

(2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. 

(3) Appeals in criminal cases where the defendant has been sentenced to death or life imprisonment go directly to the Supreme Court as a 
matter of right; in all other criminal cases and in civil cases appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court, in its dis- 
cretion, may hear appeals directly from the trial court in cases where delay would cause substantial harm or the Court of Appeals 
docket is unusually full. 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution estab- 
lishes the General Court of Justice which "shall consti- 
tute a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdic- 
tion, operation, and administration, and shall consist 
of an Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, 
and a District Court Division." 

The Appellate Division is comprised of the Supreme 
Court and the Court of Appeals. 

The Superior Court Division is comprised of the su- 
perior courts which hold sessions in the county seats of 
the 100 counties of the State. The counties are grouped 
into judicial districts (33 at the present time), and one 
or more superior court judges are elected for each of 
the judicial districts. A clerk of the superior court for 
each county is elected by the voters of the county. 

The District Court Division is comprised of the dis- 
trict courts. The General Assembly is authorized to 
divide the State into a convenient number of local 
court districts and prescribe where the district courts 
shall sit, but district court must sit in at least one place 
in each county. The General Assembly has provided 
that districts for purposes of the district court are co- 
terminous with superior court judicial districts. The 
Constitution also provides for one or more magistrates 
to be appointed in each county "who shall be officers 
of the district court." 

The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains 
the term, "judicial department," stating that "The 
General Assembly shall have no power to deprive the 
judicial department of any power or jurisdiction that 
rightfully pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of 
the government, nor shall it establish or authorize any 
courts other than as permitted by this Article." The 
terms, "General Court of Justice" and "Judicial De- 
partment" are almost, but not quite, synonymous. It 
may be said that the Judicial Department encompasses 
all of the levels of court designated as the General 
Court of Justice plus all administrative and ancillary 
services within the Judicial Department. 

The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal be- 
tween the several levels of court in North Carolina's 
system of courts are illustrated in the chart on the op- 
posite page. 

Criminal Cases 

Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original ju- 
risdiction of the district courts. Some misdemeanor of- 
fenses are tried by magistrates, who are also empow- 
ered to accept pleas of guilty to certain offenses and 
impose fines in accordance with a schedule set by the 
Conference of Chief District Court Judges. Most trials 
of misdemeanors are by district court judges, who also 
hold preliminary, "probable cause" hearings in felony 
cases. Trial of felony cases is within the jurisdiction of 
the superior courts. 



Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the dis- 
trict court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by 
jury available at the district court level; appeal from the 
district courts' judgments in criminal cases is to the 
superior courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in 
life-imprisonment or death sentence cases (which are 
appealed to the Supreme Court), appeal from the su- 
perior courts is to the Court of Appeals. 

Civil Cases 

The 100 clerks of superior court are ex officio judges 
of probate and have original jurisdiction in probate 
and estates matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction 
over such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, 
condemnations under the authority of eminent domain, 
and foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed 
to the superior court. 

The district courts have original jurisdiction in juve- 
nile proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for 
involuntary commitment to a mental hospital, and gen- 
eral civil cases where the amount in litigation is $5,000 
or less. If the amount in litigation is $500* or less and 
the plantiff in the case so requests, the chief district 
court judge may assign the case for initial hearing by a 
magistrate. Magistrates' decisions may be appealed to 
the district court. Trial by jury for civil cases is avail- 
able in the district courts; appeal from the judgment of 
a district court in a civil case is to the North Carolina 
Court of Appeals. 

The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of 
general civil cases where the amount of litigation is 
more than $5,000. Appeals from decisions of most 
administrative agencies is first within the jurisdiction of 
the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in 
civil cases is to the Court of Appeals. 

Administration 

The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general 
power to supervise and control the proceedings of any 
of the other courts of the General Court of Justice" 
(G.S. 7A-32(b)). 

In addition to this grant of general supervisory 
power, the North Carolina General Statutes provide 
certain Judicial Department officials with specific 
powers and responsibilities for the operation of the 
court system. The Supreme Court has the responsibility 
for prescribing rules of practice and procedures for the 
appellate courts and for prescribing rules for the trial 
courts to supplement those prescribed by statute. The 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court designates one of 
the judges of the Court of Appeals to be its Chief 
Judge, who in turn is responsible for scheduling the ses- 
sions of the Court of Appeals. 



* Increased to $800 effective October 1 , 1979 (G.S. 7A-2 10). 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



The chart on the following page illustrates specific 
responsibilities for administration of the trial courts 
vested in Judicial Department officials by statute. The 
Chief Justice appoints both the Director and Assistant 
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts; the 
Assistant Director also serves as the Chief Justice's 
administrative assistant. The schedule of sessions of su- 
perior court in the 100 counties is set by the Supreme 
Court; assignment of the State's rotating superior court 
judges is the responsibility of the Chief Justice. Finally, 
the Chief Justice designates a chief district court judge 
for each of the State's 33 judicial districts from among 
the elected district court judges of the respective dis- 
tricts. These judges have special responsibilities for the 
scheduling of the district courts and magistrates' courts 
within their respective districts, as well as general local- 
level administrative responsibilities. 

The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsi- 
ble for direction of the non-judicial, administrative and 
business affairs of the Judicial Department. Included 



among its functions are fiscal management, personnel 
direction, information and statistical services, supervi- 
sion of record keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, 
liaison with the legislative and executive departments of 
government, court facility evaluation, purchase and 
contract, education and training, coordination of the 
program for provision of legal counsel to indigent per- 
sons, juvenile probation and after-care, trial court ad- 
ministrator services, planning, and general administra- 
tive services. 

The clerk of superior court in each county acts as 
clerk for both the superior and district courts. In most 
counties the clerk is also chairman of the county's cal- 
endar committee, which sets the civil case calendar. (In 
a few districts these committees have been abolished 
with the advent of the "trial court administrator" pro- 
gram now being tested.) The criminal case calendars in 
both superior and district courts are set by the district 
attorney of the respective district. 



PRINCIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES FOR 
NORTH CAROLINA TRIAL COURTS 



CHIEF JUSTICE 

and 

SUPREME COURT 



(33) Senior Resident 

Judges; (100) Clerks 

of Superior Court 

SUPERIOR 
COURTS 



? 
2 

i 



Administrative 

Office of 

the Courts 




(33) Chief District 
Court Judges 

DISTRICT 
COURTS 



1 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other 
trial courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court 
judges, who rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice. 

: Both the Director and Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at 
the pleasure of the Chief Justice. 

3 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other 
trial courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge in each of the 33 judicial districts from the 
judges elected in the respective districts. 

4 The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of 
the offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials 
in the Judicial Department. 

5 The district attorney sets the criminal-case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge 
and the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their re- 
spective courts. 

h In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record- 
keeping functions for both the superior court and district court of his county. Magistrates, who serve under the 
supervision of the chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nomi- 
nees submitted by the clerk of superior court. 



II 



THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 1 



Chief Justice 
SUSIE SHARP : 



Associate Justices 



JOSEPH BRANCH' 

J. FRANK HUSKINS 

J. WILLIAM COPELAND 



JAMESG. EXUNLJR. 

DAVID M. BRITT 

WALTER E. BROCK 



Retired Chief Justice 
WILLIAM H. BOBBITT 



Retired Justices 



J. WILLPLESS,JR. 
CARLISLE W.HIGGINS 



I. BEVERLY LAKE 
DAN K.MOORE 



Clerk 
John R. Morgan 

Librarian 
Frances H. Hall 



'As of 30 June 1979. 

2 Retired 3! July 1979. 

'Appointed Chief Justice 1 August 1979. Court of Appeals Judge J. Phil Carlton was appointed Associate Justice 2 August 1979. 



12 



THE SUPREME COURT 



At the apex of the General Court of Justice is the 
seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to 
consider and decide questions of law presented in civil 
and criminal cases appealed from the lower courts. The 
Chief Justice and six associate justices are elected to 
eight-year terms by popular vote. There are two terms 
of the Supreme Court each year: a Spring Term com- 
mencing on the first Tuesday in February and a Fall 
Term commencing on the first Tuesday in September. 
The Court sits only en banc. 

Jurisdiction 

The only original jurisdiction exercised by the Su- 
preme Court is over the censure and removal of judges 
upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judi- 
cial Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jur- 
isdiction includes: cases on appeal by right from the 
Court of Appeals (Utilities Commission general rate- 
setting cases, cases involving constitutional questions, 
and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court 
of Appeals); cases on appeal by right from the superior 
courts (criminal cases in which the defendant has been 
sentenced to death or to life imprisonment); and cases 
in which review has been granted in the Supreme 
Court's discretion (cases of significant public interest 
and cases involving legal principles of major signifi- 
cance to North Carolina jurisprudence). Discretionary 
review by the Supreme Court directly from the trial 
courts may be granted when delay would likely cause 
substantial harm or when the workload of the Appel- 
late Division is such that the expeditious administra- 
tion of justice requires it; most appeals are heard only 
after review by the Court of Appeals. Discretionary 
review may also be granted when the decision of the 
Court of Appeals in a case appears likely to be in con- 
flict with a decision of the Supreme Court. 

Administration 

The Supreme Court has general power to supervise 
and control the proceedings of the other courts of the 
General Court of Justice. The court has specific power 
to prescribe the rules of practice for the Appellate Divi- 
sion and supplementary rules of practice and procedure 
for the trial court divisions consistent with the rules 
prescribed by the General Assembly. The schedule of 
superior court sessions in the 100 counties is approved, 
yearly, by the Supreme Court. The members of the 



North Carolina Judicial Planning Committee are ap- 
pointed by, and serve at the pleasure o\\ the Supreme 
Court, as are the Clerk of the Supreme Court, the Li- 
brarian of the Supreme Court, and the Appellate Divi- 
sion Reporter. 

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints 
both the Director and Assistant Director of the Admin- 
istrative Office of the Courts, who serve at his pleasure. 
He also designates a Chief Judge from among the 
judges of the Court o\~ Appeals and a Chief District 
Court Judge from among the judges in each o( the 
State's 33 judicial districts. He assigns superior court 
judges, who regularly rotate from district to district, to 
the scheduled sessions of superior court in the 100 
counties, and is also empowered to transfer district 
court judges to other districts for temporary or special- 
ized duty. The Chief Justice (or another member of the 
Supreme Court designated by him) is the chairman of 
the Judicial Council, and two superior court judges, 
one district court judge and two district attorneys are 
appointed to two-year terms on the Council by the 
Chief Justice. He also appoints three o\' the seven 
members of the Judicial Standards Commission, a 
judge of the Court of Appeals who serves as the Com- 
mission's chairman, one superior court judge and one 
district court judge. 

Operations of the Court, 1978-79 

Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 
1978-79 fiscal year ending June 30, 1979 amounted to 
$1,173,674, an 'increase of 10.9% over the 1977-78 fiscal 
year which had expenditures of $1,057,897. Expendi- 
tures for the Supreme Court during 1978-79 constituted 
1.9% of all General Fund expenditures for the opera- 
tion of the entire Judicial Department during that fiscal 
year. 

During the J 978 Fall Term and the 1979 Spring 
Term a total of 69 cases were brought forward from 
previous terms and 188 new cases were docketed, for a 
total of 257 cases before the Court during this period. 
During these two terms 23 cases were withdrawn or 
dismissed, opinions were filed in 162 cases, and at the 
end of the 1979 Spring Term 19 cases were carried for- 
ward to the following term. During these two terms a 
total of 499 petitions were filed and 65 petitions were 
allowed. (See Part IV of this Annual Report for more 
detail on caseload activity before the Supreme Court.) 



13 



THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA' 



Chief Judge 
NAOMI E. MORRIS 



Judges 



FRANK M. PARKER 
R. A.HEDRICK 
EARL W.VAUGHN 
ROBERT M.MARTIN 
EDWARD B.CLARK 
GERALD ARNOLD 



BURLEY B. MITCHELL. JR.- 

JOHN WEBB 

RICHARD C. ERWIN 

HARRY C. MARTIN 

J. PHIL CARLTON' 



Retired Chief Judge 
RAYMOND B. MALLARD 4 

Retired Judge 
HUGH B. CAMPBELL 

Clerk 
Francis E. Dail 



'As of 30 June 1979. 



A3UI JU JUMt \7I7. 

1 Resigned 20 August 1979. Judge Cecil J. Hill was appointed to fill Judge Mitchell's unexpired term and took office on 14 September 1979. 
1 Resigned 2 August 1979 upon appointment to the Supreme Court. Judge Hugh A. Wells was appointed to fill Judge Carlton's unexpired 



term and took office on 20 August 1979 
■•Deceased 20 July 1979. 



14 



THE COURT OF APPEALS 



The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's 
intermediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the 
appeals originating from the trial courts. The Court 
regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other loca- 
tions in the State as authorized by the Supreme Court. 
Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regular or 
frequent. During 1978-1979, panels of the Court of Ap- 
peals held three two-day sessions in Winston-Salem. 
Judges of the Court of Appeals are elected by popular 
vote for eight-year terms. A Chief Judge for the Court 
is designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 
and serves in that capacity at the pleasure of the Chief 
Justice. 

Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the 
Chief Judge responsible for assigning members of the 
Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each 
judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal num- 
ber of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge 
presides over the panel of which he or she is a member 
and designates a presiding judge for the other panels. 

The Chief Judge (or another member of the Court of 
Appeals designated by the Chief Judge) is an ex officio 
member of the Judicial Council; and one member of 
the Court of Appeals, designated by the Chief Justice 
of the Supreme Court, serves as chairman of the Judi- 
cial Standards Commission. 

Jurisdiction 

The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals 
consists of cases appealed from the trial courts. This 
Court also hears appeals directly from any final order 
or decision of the North Carolina Utilities Commis- 
sion, and from certain final orders or decisions of the 
North Carolina State Bar and the Commissioner of In- 



surance. Effective September 1, 1979, appeals from cer- 
tain final orders or decisions of the Property Tax Com- 
mission go directly to the Court of Appeals. (Appeals 
from the decisions of other administrative agencies lie, 
first, within the jurisdiction of the superior courts.) 

Effective April 30, 1979, the General Assembly con- 
ferred upon the Chief Judge and the six judges next 
senior in service on the Court of Appeals jurisdiction to 
censure or remove from office a Supreme Court justice. 
Such censure or removal case comes before the seven- 
member panel of judges upon the non-binding recom- 
mendation of the Judicial Standards Commission. 



Operations of the Court, 1978-79 

Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during 
the 1978-79 fiscal year ending June 30, 1979 totalled 
$1,485,877, an increase of 20.4% over 1977-78 expendi- 
tures of $1,233,765. Much of this increase is attribut- 
able to the increase (from nine to twelve) in the number 
of Court of Appeals judges. Expenditures for the Court 
of Appeals during 1978-79 amounted to 2.4% of all 
General Fund expenditures for the operation of the en- 
tire Judicial Department during that fiscal year. 

During the fiscal year July 1, 1978 through June 30, 
1979 the Court of Appeals reported dispositions in a 
total of 1,114 cases. A total of 671 published opinions 
were filed, of which 230 were in criminal cases and 441 
were in civil cases, including appeals from the Insur- 
ance Commissioner, the Industrial Commission, and 
the Utilities Commission. 

Dispositions in a total of 443 cases were reported 
without published opinions, of which 280 were criminal 
cases and 163 were civil cases. 



15 



iirtaft 



North Carolina State Library 
Raleigh 






?•'- 



> 

5 



w 

H 

H 

P 
C 
U 
H 
Z 
Ed 

w 



c 
c 

b 



> 

5 



> 

c 
o 

- 




-a 


s_ 


c 


E 

c 




c 

at 


=1 
o 


C 






-J 


o 


— 


v. 


v. 








u 


C 


t- 

o 


> 


u 


i- 
>> 




1— 

u 


^a 


o 




ex 


■j 


u_ 




-5 


3 
1— 

73 


o 


y 

-J 

3 


u 

IS 


T3 


3 


'J 


■ ' ■ 




3 


00 


'l— 


w 


c 




<U 




u- 






a: 


y. 


3 


w 


3 
O 


y, 


-5 
o 


O 
O 




'— 






*-^ 


y 




'J 




'J 




o 

— 1 

C 


i— 

t/3 


o 

I— 


-J 










_E 


T3 


T3 


y 

-5 


b 


C 


-a 


~ 


E 

o 
>- 
■— 


aJ 


' ~~ 


'-a 




■6 

3 


-a 
y 


>> 

E 
3 


A 




u 


i— 


o 










■_j 




-j 


-z 


> 


'J 


'j 




u 


c 




i— 


o 


j= 


— 


_c 


;— 






cT: 


^ 


"J 


j= 


--, 




_E 


3 




~ 
o 
-J 



17 



JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT* 

(As of June 30, 1979) 



District 

1 

2 
3 

4 



1 1 
12 

13 
14 



DIVISION I 

J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City 

Elbert S. Peel, Jr., Williamston 

Robert D. Rouse, Jr., Farmville 
David E. Reid, Jr., Greenville 

Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville 
James R. Strickland, Jacksonville 

Bradford Tillery, Wilmington 
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington 

Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids 

George M. Fountain, Tarboro 
Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro 

R. Michael Bruce, Mount Olive 
James D. Llewellyn, Kinston 

DIVISION II 

Hamilton H. Hobgood, Louisburg 

James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh 
Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh 
A. Pilston Godwin, Jr., Raleigh 
Edwin S. Preston, Jr., Raleigh 

Harry E. Canaday, Benson 

E. Maurice Braswell, Fayetteville 
Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville 
D. G. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville 

Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 

Thomas H. Lee, Durham 
Anthony M. Brannon, Bahama 
John C. Martin, Durham 



15A D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington 

1 5B F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill 

16 Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton 



DIVISION III 
District 

17 James M. Long, Yanceyville 

18 Charles T. Kivett, Greensboro 
W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro 
Edward K. Washington, Greensboro 

19A Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer 
James C. Davis, Concord 

19B HalH. Walker, Asheboro 

20 John D. McConnell, Southern Pines 
F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro 

21 Harvey A. Lupton, Winston-Salem 
William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem 

22 Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville 
Peter W. Hairston, Advance 

23 Julius A. Rosseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro 

DIVISION IV 

24 Ronald W. Howell, Marshall 

25 Sam J. Ervin, III, Morganton 
Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 

26 Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte 
Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte 
Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte 
William T. Grist, Charlotte 
Clifton E. Johnson, Charlotte 

27A Robert W. Kirby, Cherryville 
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia 

27B John R. Friday, Lincolnton 

28 Robert D. Lewis, Asheville 
C. Walter Allen, Asheville 

29 J. W. Jackson, Hendersonville 

30 Lacy H. Thornburg, Webster 



* In districts with more than one resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed first 



SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 



Ronald Barbee, Greensboro 

Robert R. Browning, Greenville 

Robert L. Gavin, Pinehurst 

William Thomas Graham, Winston-Salem 



Harry L. Riddle, Jr., Morganton 
David I. Smith, Burlington 
Donald L. Smith, Raleigh 
Ralph A. Walker, Greensboro 



THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



North Carolina's superior courts are principally orig- 
inal-jurisdiction trial courts which also perform some 
appellate functions. In 1978-79 there were 58 "resi- 
dent" superior court judges elected to office in the 33 
judicial districts, for eight-year terms by Statewide bal- 
lot, and eight "special" superior court judges, appoint- 
ed to office by the Governor for four-year terms. 



Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under the Consti- 
tution of North Carolina, at least two sessions (a week 
each) of superior court are held annually in each of the 
100 counties. The vast majority of counties have more 
than the Constitutional minimum of two weeks o\ su- 
perior court annually. Many larger counties have 
superior court in session about every week in the year. 



Jurisdiction 



The superior court has original jurisdiction in all fel- 
ony cases and in those misdemeanor cases which origi- 
nate by grand jury indictment. (Most misdemeanors 
are tried first in the district court, from which they may 
be appealed to the superior court for trial de novo by a 
jury. No trial by jury is available for criminal cases in 
district court.) The superior court is the proper court 
for trial of civil cases where the amount in controversy 
exceeds $5,000, and this court has jurisdiction over ap- 
peals from all administrative agencies except the Utili- 
ties Commission, Industrial Commission, certain rul- 
ings of the Commissioner of Insurance, and the Board 
of Bar Examiners of the N.C. State Bar. Appeals from 
these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. 
Regardless of the amount in controversy, the original 
civil jurisdiction of the superior court does not include 
domestic relations cases, which are heard in the district 
courts, or probate and estates matters and certain spe- 
cial proceedings heard first by the clerk o\' superior 
court as ex officio judge of probate. Rulings of the 
clerk are within the appeallate jurisidiction of the su- 
perior court. 

Administration 

The 100 counties of North Carolina are grouped into 
33 judicial districts. Each district has at least one resi- 
dent superior court judge who has certain administra- 
tive responsibilities for his home district, such as pro- 
viding for civil case-calendaring procedures (criminal 
case calendars are the responsibility of the district at- 
torneys). In districts with more than one resident super- 
ior court jduge, the judge senior in service on the super- 
ior court bench exercises these supervisory powers. 

The 33 judicial districts are divided into four divi- 
sions for the rotation of superior court judges. Within 
his division, a resident superior court judge is required 
to rotate through the judicial districts, holding court 
for at least six months in each, then moving on to an- 
other district. A special superior court judge may be 
assigned to hold court in any of the 100 counties. As- 
signments of all superior court judges are made by the 



Resources 

A total of $12,377,669 was expended for operation of 
the superior courts during the 1978-79 fiscal year, an 
increase of 18.5% over 1977-78 expenditures o\' 
$10,443,645. This total includes expenditures lor the 
State's district attorneys' offices as well as the salaries 
and operating expenses of the 66 superior court judges, 
court reporters in the superior courts, and staff sup- 
port. The 1978-79 total amounted to 19.9% of the Gen- 
eral Fund expenditures for operating expenses o\' the 
entire Judicial Department. 

1978-79 Caseload 

Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 
68,625 cases were filed in the superior courts during the 
period July 1, 1978 through June 30, 1979. As the white 
bars in the chart below illustrate, superior court case 
findings have been increasing: the 1978-79 total is 5.9% 
higher than the total of 64,819 cases filed during the 
1978 calendar year and 11. 3% higher than the 1977 to- 
tal of 61,665 cases filed. 

A total of 65,91 1 superior court cases were disposed 
of during 1978-79. Like filings, dispositions (shown m 
the black bars in the first chart on the following page) 
have been increasing: the total for the 1978-79 fiscal 
year is 6.8% higher than the figure of 61,713 cases dis- 
posed of during calendar year 1978 and 10.9% higher 
than the 59,434 cases disposed of during calendar year 
1977.* 

The numbers of superior court cases, both civil and 
criminal, which have remained pending at the end o\' 
the last five annual reporting periods are illustrated in 
the second chart on the following page. A total of 
35,172 cases were pending on June 30, 1979, a 2.9% re- 
duction from the total pending on December 31, 1978 

- 36,214 cases. As the chart illustrates, however, the 
general trend over the past four and one-half \ears has 
been one of increases in the numbers of superior court 
cases pending at year end. 

More detailed information on superior court civil 
and criminal caseloads is contained in Part IV o\~ this 
Report. 



*The data in the chart are for calendar years 1975 through 1978 and for fiscal year 1978-79. To facilitate comparisons and depict recent 
trends in case filings and dispositions, cases filed or disposed of between July 1 and December 31, 1978, are included m both the figures 
for calendar year 1978 and the figures for fiscal year 1978-79. 



I') 



SUPERIOR COURT CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS, 1975 — 1978-79 



SO. 000 





70,000 


in 
— I 

< 

U 


60,000 
50,000 









40,000 


PQ 

2 






30,000 




20,000 




10,000 



68,625 



64,424 



61,773 6 Hll 61,665 

58,789 - — H 59 - 4 - ? 




SUPERIOR COURT CASES PENDING AT YEAR END, 1975 — 1978-79 



40,000 



36,214 



35,000 



a 
z 

q 30,000 
c« 25,000 

< 



20,000 



on 

gj 1 5,000 

DQ 



1 0,000 



5,000 




20 



THE SUPERIOR COURTS 



Educational Activity 

Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Depart- 
ment sponsored the following educational activities for 
superior court judges in 1978-79: 

• the Fall Continuing Education Conference, Octo- 
ber 19-21 in Asheville, attended by 45 judges; 



an orientation session for new judges, December 
1-2 at the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill, 
attended by five new judges; 
the Spring Seminar, March 29-31 in Charlotte, at- 
tended by 56 judges; and 

the annual meeting of the Conference of Superior 
Court Judges, June 17-20 in Asheville, attended by 
54 judges. 



The Conference of Superior Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1979) 

James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh, President 

John D. McConnell, Southern Pines, 
President-Elect 

A. Pilston Godwin, Jr., Raleigh, Vice President 

F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill, 
Secretary- Treasurer 

Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville, and 
Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory, 
Additional Executive Committee Members 



21 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 
(As of June 30, 1979) 



District 

1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City 
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City 

2 Hallett S. Ward, Washington 
Charles H. Manning, Williamston 

3 Charles H. Whedbee, Greenville 
E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville 
Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City 
Norris C. Reed, Jr., New Bern 
Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton 

4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill 
E. Alex Erwin, III, Jacksonville 
Walter P. Henderson, Trenton 
Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville 

5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington 
Charles H. Rice, III, Wilmington 
John M. Walker, Wilmington 

6 Joseph D. Blythe, Harrellsville 
Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
Robert E. Williford, Lewiston 

7 George Britt, Tarboro 
Allen W. Harrell, Wilson 

Tom H. Matthews, Rocky Mount 
Ben H. Neville, Whitakers 

8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston 
Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont 
Herbert W. Hardy, Maury 
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro 
Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro 

9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford 
Ben U. Allen, Jr., Henderson 
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton 
Charles W. Wilkinson, Oxford 

10 George F. Bason, Raleigh 
Henry V. Barnette, Jr., Raleigh 
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh 
George R. Greene, Raleigh 
John Hill Parker, Raleigh 
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh 

1 1 Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield 
William Christian, Sanford 
K. Edward Greene, Dunn 
W. Pope Lyon, Smithfield 



District 

12 Derb S. Carter, Fayetteville 
Sol G. Cherry, Fayetteville 
Joseph E. Dupree, Raeford 
Charles Lee Guy, Fayetteville 
Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville 

13 Frank T. Grady, Elizabethtown 
J.Wilton Hunt, Sr., Whiteville 
William E. Wood, Whiteville 

14 J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham 
David Q. LaBarre, Durham 
William G. Pearson, II, Durham 

15A J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington 

Thomas D. Cooper, Jr., Burlington 
W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham 

15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill 
Donald L. Paschal, Siler City 

16 Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton 
B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg 
John S. Gardner, Lumberton 
Charles G. McLean, Lumberton 

17 Leonard H. van Noppen, Danbury 
Foy Clark, Mt. Airy 

Jerry Cash Martin, Mt. Airy 
Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville 

18 Robert L. Cecil, High Point 
Elreta M. Alexander, Greensboro 
Frank A. Campbell, Greensboro 
B. Gordon Gentry, Greensboro 
John B. Hatfield, Jr., Greensboro 
James Samuel Pfaff, Greensboro 
Joseph A. Williams, Greensboro 
John F. Yeattes, Jr., Greensboro 

19A Robert L. Warren, Concord 
L. Frank Faggart, Kannapolis 
Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord 
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury 

19B L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 
William H. Heafner, Asheboro 

20 Donald R. Huffman, Wadesboro 
Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle 
Kenneth W. Honeycutt, Monroe 
Walter M. Lampley, Rockingham 



*The Chief District Court Judge tor each district is listed first. 



23 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 
(As of June 30, 1979) 



District 

21 Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem 
William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem 
James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem 
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem 
Gary B. Tash, Winston-Salem 

22 Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville 
Preston Cornelius, Mooresville 
Robert W. Johnson, Statesville 
Hubert E. Olive, Jr., Lexington 

23 Ralph Davis, North Wilkesboro 
John T. Kilby, Jefferson 
Samuel T. Osborne, Wilkesboro 

24 J. Ray Braswell, Newland 
Robert H. Lacey, Newland 

25 Livingston Vernon, Morganton 
Edward J. Crotty, Hickory 
Bill J. Martin, Hickory 

L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory 
Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton 

26 Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte 
P. B. Beachum, Jr., Charlotte 
Walter H. Bennett, Jr., Charlotte 
Larry Thomas Black, Charlotte 
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte 
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte 
William G. Jones, Charlotte 
James E. Lanning, Charlotte 



District 

27A Lewis Bulwinkle, Gastonia 

Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia 
J. Ralph Phillips, Gastonia 
Donald E. Ramseur, Gastonia 

27B A. Max Harris, Ellenboro 
George W. Hamrick, Shelby 

28 James O. Israel, Jr., Candler 
Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden 
Peter L. Roda, Asheville 

William Marion Styles, Black Mountain 

29 Robert C. Cash, Brevard 

Zoro J. Guice, Jr., Hendersonville 
Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton 

30 Robert Leatherwood, III, Bryson City 
J. Charles McDarris, Waynesville 
John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy 



+ The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 



24 



THE DISTRICT COURTS 



North Carolina's district courts are trial courts with 
original jurisdiction of the overwhelming majority of 
the cases handled by the State's court system. There 
were 126 district court judgeships at the begining of 
1978-79; one additional judgeship was created with the 
division, effective January 1, 1979, of District 19 into 
Districts 19A and 19B. District court judges are elected 
to four-year terms by the voters of their respective dis- 
tricts. 

A total of 589 magistrate positions (some part-time) 
were authorized in 1978-79. Magistrates are appointed 
by the senior resident superior court judge from nomi- 
nations submitted by the clerk of superior court of 
their county, and are supervised by the chief district 
court judge of their district. 

Jurisdiction 

The jurisdiction of the district court extends to vir- 
tually all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings 
in most felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involun- 
tary commitments and re-commitments to mental hos- 
pitals, domestic relations cases, and to general civil 
cases where the amount in controversy is $5,000 or less. 
Upon the plantiffs request, a civil case where the 
amount in controversy is $500* or less may be denomi- 
nated a "small claims" case and assigned by the chief 
district court judge to a magistrate for hearing. Magis- 
trates are also empowered to try worthless check crimi- 
nal cases when the value of the check does not exceed 
$300** and the offender has fewer than four previous 
worthless check convictions; magistrates may also ac- 
cept waivers of appearances and pleas of guilty in cer- 
tain traffic cases. Magistrates conduct initial hearings 
to fix conditions of release for arrested offenders and 
are empowered to issue arrest and search warrants. 

Administration 

A chief district court judge is appointed for each ju- 
dicial district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court 
from among the elected judges in the respective dis- 
tricts. Subject to the Chief Justice's general supervision, 
each chief judge exercises administrative supervision 
and authority over the operation of the district courts 
and magistrates in his district. Each chief judge is re- 
sponsible for: scheduling sessions of district court and 
assigning judges; supervising the calendaring of civil 
cases; assigning matters to magistrates; making ar- 
rangements for court reporting and jury trials in civil 
cases; and supervising the discharge of the clerical func- 
tions, in the district courts, of the clerks of superior 
court of the district. 

The 33 chief district judges meet in conference at 
least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of 
the Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual 

♦Increased to $800, effective October 1, 1979(G.S. 7A-2IO). 
** Increased to $400, effective October 1, 1979 (G.S. 7A-273). 



conference adopts a uniform schedule o\' traffic of- 
fenses and fines for their violation for use by magis- 
trates and clerks of court in accepting defendants' 
waivers of appearance and guilty pleas. 



The Conference of Chief District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1979) 

J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington, President 

John B. Chaffin, Elizabeth City, Vice President 



Resources 

A total of $12,745,520 was expended for operating 
expenses of the district courts in 1978-79, an increase of 
14.9% over 1977-78 expenditures of $11,095,953. In- 
cluded in the total are expenses of court reporters for 
district courts as well as personnel costs of district 
court judges and magistrates. The 1978-79 total is 
20.5% of the General Fund expenditures for operation 
of the entire Judicial Department. 

1978-79 Caseload 

Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 
1,432,067 cases were filed in the district courts from 
July I, 1978 through June 30, 1979. As the black bars 
in the first chart on the following page illustrate, dis- 
trict court case filings have varied from year to year in 
the last four and one-half years, with the overall trend 
being one of gradual increase. The 1978-79 total of 
1,432,067 cases filed is less than one percent fewer than 
the total of 1,440,378 cases filed during the 1978 calen- 
dar year, but almost seven percent more than the 1975 
filings total of 1,340,556 cases. 

A total of 1,402,518 district court cases were dis- 
posed of during 1978-79. Figures for total dispositions 
over the last four and one-half years, illustrated by the 
white bars in the chart following, have varied up and 
.down with the variations in case filings. The total of 
1,402,518 cases disposed of during 1978-79 is less than 
one percent below the total of 1,407,360 cases disposed 
of during the 1978 calendar year, but about six percent 
above the 1975 dispositions total of 1,322,359 cases. 

The numbers of district court cases, both civil and 
criminal, which remained pending at the end of the last 
five annual reporting periods are shown in the second 
chart on the following page. A total of 244,922 cases 
were pending on June 30, 1979, a slight increase (about 
one percent) over the 242,520 cases pending as of De- 
cember 31, 1978. 

More detailed information on district court civil and 
criminal caseloads is contained in Part IV of this 
Report. 



25 



DISTRICT COURT CASE FILINGS AND DISPOSITION, 1975 — 1978-79* 





1,600,000 




1 ,400,000 




1,200,000 


•jr. 


1 ,000,000 


ir. 
< 

u 


800,000 


C 


600,000 


as 


400,000 


OQ 




7 
Z 


200,000 

(i 



440.378 



1,340,556 



.360 1.432.067 | 4025|8 




Filings 



Dispositions 



DISTRICT COURT CASES PENDING AT YEAR END, 1975 — 1978-79 



275,000 

250,000 

225,000 

200,000 

175,000 

1 50,000 

125,000 

100,000 

75,000 

50,000 

25,000 





242,520 



244,922 




Dec. 31, 

1975 



Dec. 31 
1976 



Dec. 31 
1977 



Dec. 31 
1978 



June 10, 
1979 



*The data in this chart arc lor calendar years 1975 through 1978 and lor fiscal year 1978-79. To facilitate comparisons and depicl recent 
trends in case filings and dispositions, cases Hied or disposed of between Jul) I and December 31, 1978, are included in both the figures lor 
calendar year 1978 and the figures for fiscal year 1978-79. 

Juvenile cases and district court hearings relating to involuntary commitments or recommitments to mental hospitals are not included in 
these figures; these matters were not reported to AOC by case-numbers and filing and disposition dates during 1978-79. Some data on 
these proceedings are available: see Section 3 of Part IV (juvenile cases) and "Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents" in Part 
III (commitment and recommitment hearings). 



26 



THE DISTRICT COURTS 



Educational Activity 

Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Depart- 
ment sponsored the following educational activities for 
district court judges in 1978-79: 

• a conference on juveniles and learning disabilities, 
September 15-16 in Burlington, attended by 32 
judges; 

• the district judges' Fall Seminar, October 19-21 in 
Asheville, attended by 87 judges; 

• three orientation sessions for new judges, January 
5-6, January 19-20 and February 16-17 at the Insti- 
tute of Government in Chapel Hill, attended by a 
total of 12 new judges and appointees; 

• a conference on commitment of juveniles to train- 
ing schools, March 30-31 in Durham, attended by 
43 judges; and 

• the Summer Seminar o[ the Association of District 
Court Judges, June 17-20 in Charlotte, attended by 
95 judges. 



By statute, new magistrates are required to satisfac- 
torily complete a course of basic training of at least 40 
hours within six months of taking office. Two sessions 
of this course were offered at the Institute of Govern- 
ment in Chapel Hill in 1978-79. The first (July 17-21 
and July 31-August 4) was attended by 24 new magis- 
trates; the second (February 5-9 and February 12-16) 
was attended by 52 new magistrates. 

The Judicial Department also sponsored: 

• the Fall Meeting of the Magistrates Association, 
October 16-18 in Asheville, attended by 102 magis- 
trates; 

• three sessions of a refresher course, October 23 in 
Chapel Hill (86 magistrates), October 30 in Green- 
ville (38 magistrates), and November 10 in 
Fayetteville (30 magistrates); and 

• the Spring Meeting of the Magistrates Association, 
May 14-16 in Raleigh, attended by 70 magistrates. 



The Association of District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1978) 

John M. Walker, Wilmington, President 

Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton, Vice President 

Robert J. Leatherwood, III, Bryson City, 
Secretary- Treasurer 

Hubert E. Olive, Lexington, and 
Robert D. Wheeler, Grifton, 
Additional Executive Committee Members 



21 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

(As of June 30, 1979) 



District 

1 THOMAS S. WATTS, Elizabeth City 

2 WILLIAM C. GRIFFIN, JR.. Williamston 

3 ELI BLOOM, Greenville 

4 WILLIAM H. ANDREWS, Jacksonville 

5 W. ALLEN COBB, Wilmington 

6 W. H. S. BURGWYN, JR., Woodland 

7 HOWARDS. BONEY, JR., Tarboro 

8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro 

9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford 

10 J. RANDOLPH RILEY, Raleigh 

11 JOHN W.TWISDALE, Smithfield 

12 EDWARD W.GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville 

13 LEE J. GREER, Whiteville 

14 DAN K. EDWARDS, JR.. Durham 
ISA HERBERT F. PIERCE, Graham 
I5B WADE BARBER, JR., Pittsboro 

16 JOE FREEMAN BRITT, Lumberton 



District 

17 FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR., Reidsville 

18 MICHAEL A. SCHLOSSER, Greensboro 
19A JAMES E. ROBERTS, Concord 

19B RUSSELL G. WALKER, JR., Asheboro 

20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe 

21 DONALD K. TISDALE, Winston-Salem 

22 H. W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington 

23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro 

24 CLYDE M. ROBERTS, Marshall 

25 DONALD E.GREENE, Newton 

26 PETER S.GILCHRIST. Charlotte 
27A JOSEPH G. BROWN, Gastonia 

27B W. HAMPTON CHILDS. JR., Lincolnton 

28 RONALD C. BROWN. Asheville 

29 M. LEONARD LOWE, Rutherfordton 

30 MARCELLUS BUCHANAN, III, Sylva 



28 



THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 



The State is divided into prosecutorial districts which 
correspond to its judicial districts, and a district attor- 
ney is elected by the voters of each of the 33 districts 
for a four-year term. 

Duties 

The district attorney represents the State in all crimi- 
nal actions brought in the superior and district courts 
in his district. In addition to his prosecutorial func- 
tions, the district attorney is responsible for calendar- 
ing criminal cases for trial. 

Resources 

Each district attorney is authorized to employ, on a 
full-time basis, the number of assistant district attor- 
neys specified by statute for his district. As of June 30, 
1979, a total of 179 assistant district attorneys were au- 
thorized for the 33 districts, 173 of them paid with 
State funds and six with federal LEAA funds in three 
"career criminal prosecution units" in Districts 10, 12 
and 26. Including LEAA-funded personnel, the district 
attorney of District 26 (Mecklenburg County) had the 
largest staff - 17 assistants; the smallest staffs were in 
Districts 23 and 24 — two assistant district attorneys in 
each. 

Each district attorney is also authorized to employ, 
on a full-time basis, an administrative assistant to assist 
in preparing cases for trial and to expedite the criminal 
court docket. The district attorney in 18 of the 33 dis- 
tricts is empowered to employ an investigative assist- 
ant, to aid in the investigation of cases preparatory to 
trial. 

1978-1979 Caseload 

A total of 56,591 criminal cases were filed in superior 
courts from July 1, 1978 through June 30, 1979; 32,129 



of these cases were felonies and 24,462 were misde- 
meanors on appeal from district courts. Combined with 
the 17,894 cases pending on July 1, 1978, the district at- 
torneys 1 superior court caseload for the year totalled 
74,485 cases. Of these a total of 54,587 cases (30,979 
felonies and 23,608 misdemeanor appeals) were dis- 
posed of, 73.3% of the caseload. Still pending in superi- 
or courts on June 30, 1979 were 19,898 cases (11,734 
felonies and 8,164 misdemeanor appeals), which is an 
increase of 1 1.2% over the number pending on July 1, 
1978. 

In district courts, a total of 1,152,519 criminal cases 
were filed during 1978-79 (796,227 motor vehicle cases 
and 356,292 other criminal cases). A total of 136.288 
cases were pending as of July 1, 1978; this figure, com- 
bined with cases filed during the year, totalled 
1,288,807 criminal cases to be handled in district court. 
This cannot be regarded as the district attorneys" "case- 
load," however, for many district court criminal cases 
are disposed of by defendant's waiver of appearance 
and plea ol~ guilty before a magistrate or clerk of su- 
perior court staff, and these cases do not require the 
district attorneys' attention. A total of 522,452 cases 
were disposed of by waiver in 1978-79, and an addi- 
tional 24,204 cases which were filed in 1978-79 were 
disposed of by waiver after June 30, 1979; when these 
are excluded, the district attorneys' district court case- 
load for the year totalled 742,151 cases. Of these, 
612,187 were disposed of, 82.5% of the caseload. As of 
June 30, 1979, 154,168 criminal cases were pending in 
the district courts of the State, an increase of 13.1% 
over the number pending on July 1, 1978. 

Additional information on the district attorneys' su- 
perior court and district court caseloads is included in 
Sections 2 and 3, respectively, of Part IV of this Report. 



29 



THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 



Educational Activity 

Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Depart- 
ment sponsored the following educational activities for 
district attorneys and their staffs in 1978-79: 

• a conference for administrative assistants, August 
29-31 at the Institute of Government in Chapel 
Hill, attended by 20 administrative assistants, one 
investigative assistant, and one secretary; 

• an orientation session for new prosecutors, Octo- 
ber 17-20 at the Institute of Government in Chapel 
Hill, attended by 24 new assistant district attor- 
neys, one administrative assistant, and one investi- 
gative assistant; 



the Fall Conference of the District Attorneys As- 
sociation, October 26-28 in Chapel Hill, attended 
by 11 district attorneys and 71 assistant district 
attorneys; 

a seminar on homicide for prosecutors, March 
19-23 in Chapel Hill, attended by 16 district attor- 
neys, 58 assistant district attorneys, and two inves- 
tigative assistants; and 

the June Conference of the District Attorneys As- 
sociation, June 17-20 near Charlotte, attended by 
16 district attorneys, 76 assistant district attorneys, 
and one administrative assistant. 



The District Attorneys Association 

(Officers as of June 30, 1979) 

Peter S. Gilchrist, Charlotte, President 

Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City, Vice President 

Joe Freeman Britt, Lumberton, 
Vice President, Legislative Affairs 

D. Keith Teague, Elizabeth City, 
Secretary- Treasurer 



M) 



CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 
(As of June 30, 1979) 



COUNTY 


CLERK OF COURT 


COUNTY 


Alamance 


Louise B. Wilson 


Johnston 


Alexander 


Martha J. Adams 


Jones 


Alleghany 


Joan B. Atwood 


Lee 


Anson 


R. Frank Hightower 


Lenoir 


Ashe 


Virginia W. Johnson 


Lincoln 


Avery 


Billy J. Vance 


Macon 


Beaufort 


Bessie J. Cherry 


Madison 


Bertie 


Thomas S. Speight 


Martin 


Bladen 


Smithy S. Harris 


McDowell 


Brunswick 


K. Gregory Bellamy 


Mecklenburg 


Buncombe 


J. Ray Elingburg 


Mitchell 


Burke 


Major A. Joines 


Montgomery 


Cabarrus 


Estus B. White 


Moore 


Caldwell 


Mary Hood Thompson 


Nash 


Camden 


Caroline G. Halstead 


New Hanover 


Carteret 


Mary Austin 


Northampton 


Caswell 


J. P. Moore 


Onslow 


Catawba 


Eunice W. Mauney 


Orange 


Chatham 


Janice Oldham 


Pamlico 


Cherokee 


Rose Mary Crooke 


Pasquotank 


Chowan 


Lena M. Leary 


Pender 


Clay 


Ralph A. Allison 


Perquimans 


Cleveland 


Ruth S. Dedmon 


Person 


Columbus 


Lacy R. Thompson 


Pitt 


Craven 


Dorothy Pate 


Polk 


Cumberland 


George T. Griffin 


Randolph 


Currituck 


Wiley B. Elliot 


Richmond 


Dare 


C. S. Meekins 


Robeson 


Davidson 


Hugh Shepherd 


Rockingham 


Davie 


Delores C. Jordan 


Rowan 


Duplin 


John A. Johnson 


Rutherford 


Durham 


James Leo Carr 


Sampson 


Edgecombe 


Curtis Weaver 


Scotland 


Forsyth 


A. E. Blackburn 


Stanly 


Franklin 


RalphS. Knott 


Stokes 


Gaston 


Betty B. Jenkins 


Surry 


Gates 


Tobe Daniels, Jr. 


Swain 


Graham 


O. W. Hooper, Jr. 


Transylvania 


Granville 


Mary Ruth C. Nelms 


Tyrrell 


Greene 


Cleo W. McKeel 


Union 


Guilford 


Joseph E. Slate, Jr. 


Vance 


Halifax 


J. C. Taylor 


Wake 


Harnett 


Georgia Lee Brown 


Warren 


Haywood 


William G. Henry 


Washington 


Henderson 


Thomas H. Thompson 


Watauga 


Hertford 


Richard T. Vann 


Wayne 


Hoke 


Juanita Edmund 


Wilkes 


Hyde 


W. Allen Credle 


Wilson 


Iredell 


Carl G. Smith 


Yadkin 


Jackson 


Frank Watson, Jr. 


Yancey 



CLERK OF COURT 

Will R. Crocker 
Ronald H. Metts 
Sion H.Kelly 
M. E. Creech 
Nellie L. Bess 
A. W. Perry 
James W. Cody 
Mary K. Wynne 
Ruth B.Williams 
Robert M. Blackburn 
Arthur Ray Ledford 
Charles M. Johnson 
Charles M. McLeod 
Rachel M. Joyner 
Louise D. Rehder 
R. Jennings White, Jr. 
Everitte Barbee 
Frank S. Frederick 
Sadie W. Edwards 
Frances W. Thompson 
Frances N. Futch 
W. J. Ward 

W. Thomas Humphries 
Sandra Gaskins 
Judy P. Arledge 
John H. Skeen 
Miriam F. Greene 
Ben G. Floyd, Jr. 
FrankieC. Williams 
Francis Glover 
Joan M. Jenkins 
Charlie T. McCullen 
J. Mason McGregor 
Joe H. Lowder 
Robert Miller 
David J. Beal 
Harold H. Sandlin 
Marian M. McMahon 
Jessie L. Spencer 
Nola H. Cunningham 
Mary Lou M. Barnett 
J. Russell Nipper 
Anne F. Davis 
Louise S. Allen 
John T. Bingham 
Shelton Jordan 
Wayne Roope 
W. A. Boone, Jr. 
Harold J. Long 
Arnold E. Higgins 



31 



THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 



A Clerk of Superior Court for each county is elected 
for four-year terms by the voters in each of North 
Carolina's 100 counties. The Clerk has jurisdiction to 
hear and decide special proceedings and is, ex officio, 
judge of probate, in addition to performing record- 
keeping and administrative functions for both the su- 
perior and district courts of his county. 

Jurisdiction 

The original jurisdiction of the clerk of the superior 
court includes the probate of wills and administration 
of decedents' estates. It also includes such "special pro- 
ceedings" as adoptions, condemnations of private 
property under the public's right of eminent domain, 
proceedings to establish boundaries, foreclosures, and 
certain proceedings to administer the estates of minors 
and incompetent adults. The right of appeal from the 
clerks' judgments in such cases lies to the superior 
court. 

The clerk of superior court is also empowered to is- 
sue search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, 
and other process necessary to execute the judgments 
entered in the superior and district courts of his county. 
For certain misdemeanor criminal offenses, the clerk is 
authorized to accept defendants' waiver of appearance 
and plea of guilty and to impose a fine in accordance 
with a schedule established by the Conference of Chief 
District Court Judges. 

Administration 

The clerk of superior court performs administrative 
duties for both the superior and district courts of his 
county. Among these duties are the maintenance of 
court records and indexes, the control and accounting 
of funds, and the furnishing of information to the Ad- 
ministrative Office of the Courts. 

In most of the 100 counties of North Carolina, civil 
case trial calendars are set by calendar committees 
chaired by the clerk of superior court. (Criminal case 
trial calendars are set by the district attorney.) In 
1978-79 these committees had been replaced by "trial 
court administrators" in three judicial districts (Dis- 
tricts 10, 22 and 28) on an experimental basis. Working 
under the supervision of the senior resident superior 
court judges these administrators had day-to-day re- 



sponsibility for the calendaring of superior court civil 
cases. The 1979 General Assembly provided funds for 
continued experimentation with this method of calen- 
dar administration in 10 of the State's 33 judidicial dis- 
tricts. 

Resources 

A total of $21,457,921 was expended in 1978-79 for 
operation of the 100 clerks of superior court offices, an 
increase of 11.6% over 1977-78 expenditures of 
$19,224,801. Included in the total were expenditures for 
jurors' and witnesses' fees, supplies, postage, telephone 
and office expenses for all local Judicial Department 
personnel, and the salaries and benefits of the clerks 
and their staffs. The 1978-79 total made up 34.5% of 
General Fund expenditures for operating expenses of 
the entire Judicial Department. 

1978-79 Caseload 

Filings of estates cases totalled 32,926 cases in 
1978-79, an increase of less than one percent over the 
number (32,602 cases) filed in the 1978 calendar year; 
filings have increased 3.7% since the 1977 calendar year 
when 31,742 estates cases were filed. A total of 31,378 
estates cases were disposed of in 1978-79, up 1.7% over 
dispositions in 1978 (30,841 cases) and 7.4%. over dispo- 
sitions in 1977 (29,222 cases). Although rising at a 
slower rate, filings of estates cases continue to out- 
number dispositions and the number of cases pending 
rose from 47,467 on December 31, 1978, to 48,560 on 
June 30, 1979 — an increase of 2.3%. 

There were 27,799 special proceedings filed in 
1978-79, an increase of 2.7% over the 1978 calendar 
year total of 27,078; compared to the 1977 filings total 
(27,156 cases), the 1978-79 total is an increase of 2.4%. 
Dispositions of special proceedings totalled 26,717 
cases in 1978-79, a decrease of two percent from the 
1978 calendar year total of 27,266 cases and of less 
than one percent from the 1977 total of 26,888 cases. 
There were 20,196 special proceedings pending before 
the clerks as of June 30, 1979, an increase of 1.9%> over 
the total (19,815 cases) pending on December 31, 1978. 

More detailed information on the clerks' estates and 
special proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of 
this Report. 



33 



THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 



Educational Activity 

Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Depart- 
ment sponsored the following educational activities for 
clerks of superior court in 1978-79: 

• the Annual Conference of the Association of 
Clerks of Superior Court, July 26-28 in Nags 
Head, attended by 68 clerks; 



the Annual Conference of the Association of As- 
sistant and Deputy Clerks of Superior Court. July 
19-21 in Charlotte, attended by 210 assistant and 
deputy clerks; and 

an orientation training session for recently elected 
and appointed clerks of superior court. January 
8-12 in Asheboro, attended by 25 new clerks. 



Association of Clerks of Superior Court 

(Officers as of June 30, 1979) 

Ruth B. Williams, McDowell County, President 

A. E. Blackburn, Forsyth County, 
First Vice President 

Ben G. Floyd, Jr., Robeson County, 
Second Vice President 

W. A. Boone, Jr., Wilson County, Secretary 

Louise B. Wilson, Alamance County, Treasurer 

Major Joines, Burke County 
Shelton Jordon, Wayne County, and 
Sion H. Kelly, Lee County (ex officio). 
Additional Executive Committee Members 



34 



PUBLIC DEFENDERS 



In 1978-79 there were five public defenders in North 
Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 12, 18, 26, 27A and 
28; these officials and their assistants provide legal 
representation for persons in designated categories who 
are determined to be indigent. The public defender for 
District 28 is appointed by the senior resident superior 
court judge from recommendations submitted by the 
district bar; for the other districts, the appointment is 
by the Governor from recommendations of the respec- 
tive district bar. Their terms are four years. Each public 
defender is by statute provided one full-time assistant; 
additional full-time or part-time assistants may be au- 
thorized by the Administrative Office of the Courts. 

Duties 

A person is determined to be indigent if he is found 
"financially unable to secure legal representation." He 
is entitled to State-paid legal representation in: any 
proceeding which may result in (or which seeks relief 
from) confinement, a fine of $500 or more, or extradic- 
tion to another state; a proceeding alleging mental ill- 
ness or incapacity which may result in hospitalization, 
sterilization, or the loss of certain property rights; and 
juvenile proceedings which may result in confinement, 
transfer to superior court for a felony trial, or a 
transfer of custody upon a finding of neglect. 

Most cases of State-paid representation of indigents 
in these five districts are handled by the public defend- 
ers. In unusual circumstances, such as the existence of a 
conflict of interests, an indigent in one of these districts 
may be represented by private counsel, appointed by 
the court and paid a fee by the State for his legal ser- 
vices. In the other 28 districts the assigned private 
counsel system is the only one used. 



Resources 

A total of SI, 149, 780 was expended for the operation 
of the five public defenders' offices in 1978-79, an in- 
crease of 11.5% over 1977-78 expenditures of 
$1,031,400. The 1978-79 total is 1.8% of all General 
Fund expenditures for the operating expenses of the en- 
tire Judicial Department. 

1978-79 Caseload 

The five public defenders' offices handled a total of 
10,972 cases, including both trials and appeals, in 
1978-79. This represents an increase of 3.2%- over the 
10,630 cases handled by these offices during the 
1977-78 fiscal year. Additional information on the 
operation of these offices is contained in Part III, 
"Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents." 

Educational Activity 

Utilizing LEAA grant funds, the Judicial Depart- 
ment sponsored the following educational activities for 
public defenders in 1978-79: 

• a Fall training session, October 11-13 at the Insti- 
tute of Government in Chapel Hill, attended by 
the five public defenders and 21 assistant defend- 
ers; and 

• the Public Defenders Association Spring Confer- 
ence, April 25-27 at the Institute of Government in 
Chapel Hill, attended by the five public defenders 
and 21 assistant public defenders. 



PUBLIC DEFENDERS 

(As of June 30, 1979) 

District 12 

Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville 

District 18 
Wallace G. Harrelson, Greensboro 

District 26 

Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte 

District 27A 

Curtis O. Harris, Gastonia 

District 28 
J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville 



The Association of Public Defenders 

(Officers as of June 30, 1979) 

Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville, President 
Lawrence B. Langston, Gastonia, Vice President 
Fritz Y. Mercer, Jr., Charlotte, Secretary 
Deno G. Economous, Greensboro, Treasurer 



35 



THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 



The Director of the Administrative Office of the 
Courts and his staff perform a variety of functions for 
the Judicial Department; these are enumerated in Arti- 
cle 29 of Chapter 7A of the North Carolina General 
Statutes. The Director is appointed by the Chief Justice 
of the Supreme Court and serves at his pleasure, as 
does the Assistant Director, who is specifically charged 
with assisting the Chief Justice in making assignments 
of superior court judges and assisting the Supreme 
Court in preparing calendars of superior court trial ses- 
sions, as well as performing other functions assigned by 
the Chief Justice and the Director of AOC. 



A total of $1,361,382 was expended from the State's 
General Fund for operating expense of AOC during 
1978-79, an increase of 15.5% over 1977-78 expendi- 
tures of $1,178,529. The 1978-79 total is 2.1%- of Gener- 
al Fund expenditures for operation of the entire Judi- 
cial Department. 

In addition to the Director and Assistant Director, 
there are seven component parts of AOC, as illustrated 
in the chart below. Their respective assignments and 
activities in 1978-79 are summarized in the following 
pages. 



ORGANIZATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

(As of June 30, 1979) 



CHIEF JUSTICE 

of the 

SUPREME COURT 



COUNSEL 



DIRECTOR OF 

ADMINISTRATIVE 

OFFICE OF THE 

COURTS 



ASSISTANT 
DIRECTOR 




CLERKS' 
SERVICES 

DIVISION 



FISCAL 

MANAGEMENT 

DIVISION 



JUVENILE 
SERVICES 
DIVISION 



PERSONNEL 
DIVISION 



RESEARCH 

& PLANNING 

DIVISION 



SYSTEMS 
DIVISION 



)6 



THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 



Clerks' Services Division 

The Clerks' Services Division monitors the record- 
keeping procedures in the clerks' offices located in the 
100 counties, develops recommendations for improved 
office operations, and provides special assistance to 
individual offices where that is required from time to 
time. This Division reviews issues of staffing adequacy 
and personnel job descriptions for the clerks' offices, 
and participates in training activities involving clerk 
personnel. Liaison is maintained with other agencies or 
governmental offices which have special working rela- 
tionships with the clerks' offices: the Department of 
Archives and History on records management and re- 
tention, the Division of Motor Vehicles on traffic case 
reports, and county governments on space require- 
ments in clerks' offices. Following each legislative ses- 
sion, the Division reviews new legislation affecting the 
clerks' offices and participates in disseminating infor- 
mation on changes in the laws and in developing any 
record-keeping procedures required by new legislation. 

During the past year, this Division participated in 
the annual conference of the clerks of superior court 
and the annual conference of assistant and deputy 
clerks. In addition, the Division planned and conduct- 
ed a four-day special training conference for newly 
elected or appointed clerks of superior court. 

Office of Counsel 

The Counsel for the Administrative Office of the 
Courts provides legal advice for AOC staff as well as 
for other administrative officials in the Judicial Depart- 
ment, particularly the clerks of superior court. Another 
major area of responsibility is the development (and 
up-dating) of the variety of forms used in the trial 
courts for instituting, processing and disposing of 
cases. A third category of responsibility consists of par- 
ticipation in a variety of educational or training activity 
for personnel of the Judicial Department: presentations 
at annual conferences of the clerks of court, at confer- 
ences of assistant and deputy clerks of court, and at 
specialized group meetings scheduled throughout the 
year. 

During the 1978-79 fiscal year requests for legal ad- 
vice averaged 18 to 20 a day. Most of these requests 
were from clerks' offices. At the present time, more 
than 250 forms have been developed and approved by 
the Administrative Office of the Courts for use in pro- 
cessing the large variety of cases in the trial courts. 
Each legislative session produces changes in the laws 
which in turn require changes in existing forms or the 
development of new forms. 



Fiscal Management Division 

This Division has responsibility for the management 
of the fiscal affairs of the Judicial Department, includ- 
ing budgeting, disbursing and the related accounting, 
auditing and reporting activity. In addition, the Divi- 
sion has responsibility for purchasing and printing, and 
for warehousing and distribution of supplies for the 
Judicial Department. 

The Division formulates policy and procedures for 
the fiscal operations of the Judicial Department and 
supervises their administration. A significant portion of 
these functions pertain to the fiscal operations of the 
offices of the clerks of superior court located in each of 
the 100 counties of the State. A uniform accounting 
system is prescribed for the clerks' offices. 

The clerks' offices receive, account for and disburse 
court costs, fees, fines and bond forfeitures, as well as a 
variety of other receipts (judgment payments, estate 
settlements, trusts) which are paid into the clerks' of- 
fices as a result of court actions and proceedings. 

During the 1978-79 fiscal year, expenditures for the 
operation of the Judicial Department totalled 
$64,830,830. During the same year the Department's 
total receipts of court costs, fees, fines and forfeitures 
amounted to $48,060,916. In accord with applicable 
law, these receipts were disbursed as follows: 
$21,246,744 remitted to the State Treasurer for the 
State's General Fund and $2,518,410 for the Law En- 
forcement Officers' Retirement Fund; $23,488,366 dis- 
bursed to the several counties of the State: and 
$807,396 disbursed to municipalities throughout the 
State. 

Juvenile Services Division 

This Division administers the Statewide juvenile 
court counselor program for children alleged or adjudi- 
cated to be delinquent or undisciplined. Services in- 
clude intake (pre-hearing studies of children alleged to 
be delinquent or undisciplined); probation (supervision 
within the community for those adjudicated to be de- 
linquent or undisciplined and who have not been com- 
mitted to training school): and aftercare (supervision 
within the community for children conditionally re- 
leased from the training schools). The services are ad- 
ministered locally by court counselors in each judicial 
district, with each district having a chief court coun- 
selor in charge of the Division's functions in the 
district. 

Court counselors worked with 20,743 intake cases 
from July 1, 1978 to June 30, 1979, diverting 9,372 
cases from the juvenile courts. Of those cases diverted. 



37 



THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 



5,236 were resolved without referrals and 4,136 cases 
were referred to other resources based in the communi- 
ties, such as mental health clinics and county depart- 
ments of social services. During the year 9,332 cases 
were added to the court counselors' probation case- 
loads, with the daily average State caseload being 
6,378. 

Prior to July 1, 1978, a so-called "status offender" (a 
child found to have violated a law applicable only to 
children) who was put on probation and later found to 
have violated the conditions of his probation, could be 
committed to a training school as a "delinquent" juve- 
nile. By restricting the definition of "delinquent" to 
juveniles who have committed criminal offenses, the 

1977 General Assembly in effect prohibited the incar- 
ceration of status offenders in North Carolina. Al- 
though the long-term effects of this change have yet to 
be determined, an immediate impact on the caseload of 
the Juvenile Services Division was a significant de- 
crease in the number of children (approximately 1,164) 
placed on probation for status offenses between July 1, 

1978 and June 30, 1979. 

A major accomplishment of the Division during 
1978-79 was the establishment of minimum service de- 
livery standards for the Division. Delivery of services in 
each judicial district is now measured by these stand- 
ards under a program of periodic reviews and evalua- 
tion. 

Training continued to receive major emphasis during 
the year, with the following activities: 

• three orientation sessions (October 1978, March 
1979, and June 1979) for new court counselors; 

• a required course in seven sessions for court 
counselors, counselor trainees, intake counselors 
and district supervisors, with a total of 226 persons 
attending; 

• a required course for chief court counselors and 
administrative personnel, attended by 35 persons; 

• an optional course in two sessions for secretaries 
who deal regularly with troubled adolescents, at- 
tended by 36 secretaries; 

• 12 separate special interest courses in counseling 
techniques and theories, presented as optional 
training in a total of 23 sessions across the State, 
with a total attendance of 399; 

• a conference on juveniles with learning disabilities, 
attended by 32 district court judges; and 

• a conference on the juvenile commitment order 
and training schools, attended by 43 district court 
judges. 

In addition, tuition and registration fees were paid 
for 150 Juvenile Services Division personnel, to attend 
college courses and educational workshops and confer- 
ences. 



During May of 1979 an independent evaluation of 
the Division's training activities was conducted by the 
Training Director of the National Council of Juvenile 
and Family Court Judges. 

Personnel Division 

This Division provides the personnel administration 
and analysis of staffing requirements for the Judicial 
Department, which has approximately 3300 employees. 
The Division also has responsibility for the assignment 
of court reporters for the trial courts. 

In addition to administering its on-going services and 
programs, the Division gave particular attention to the 
following new matters during the 1978-79 fiscal year: 

• Changes in salary administration policy were de- 
veloped and approved for implementation begin- 
ning July 1, 1979, with a principal new feature 
being provision that supervisors could consider a 
half-step merit increment as well as a full-step 
increment. Previously, an employee had to be ap- 
proved for either a full-step increment or no merit 
increment. 

• A new appointments policy for the Judicial De- 
partment became effective July 1, 1978, providing 
for a probationary appointment period for new 
employees. 

• Comprehensive employee relations policies and 
procedures were adopted in April 1978 for person- 
nel of the Administrative Office of the Courts, 
with the Personnel Administrator acting as the 
first level of appeal from an employee's division. 
Since the inception of this program, 13 such ap- 
peals have been heard and acted upon by the Per- 
sonnel Administrator. 

• Comprehensive classification and pay studies were 
conducted in the offices of 10 clerks of superior 
court, including two of the largest clerks' offices 
(Forsyth and Mecklenburg Counties). Planning 
and scheduling of similar studies of other clerks' 
offices for the coming year was accomplished. 

• Studies were begun on the possible adoption of a 
Service Awards Program for Judicial Department 
employees. 



Research and Planning Division 

This Division has responsibility for conducting re- 
search and preparing reports and papers on problems 
or issues relevant to the courts of North Carolina. The 
Division provides the staff for the North Carolina Judi- 
cial Planning Committee. (This Committee, established 
by the Supreme Court of North Carolina in 1977, con- 
siders problems or issues affecting the operation of the 



38 



THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 



State's courts and has a special role in the allocation of 
LEAA funds available to the court system.) In addi- 
tion, the Division has responsibilities for the LEAA 
grants management functions for the Judicial Depart- 
ment, and for the compilation, printing and distribu- 
tion of the Annual Reports of the Administrative Of- 
fice of the Courts. 

During the 1978-79 fiscal year the Division prepared 
papers and made presentations to the Judicial Planning 
Committee on coordination of witness attendance at 
criminal trials; on the comparative need for additional 
district court judges in certain judicial districts; on a 
"trial court administrator" pilot project operation in 
three judicial districts; on retirement of magistrates; 
and on the variety of proposals considered for LEAA 
funding during the 1979-80 fiscal year. 

In September 1978 a two-volume report was com- 
pleted and released on North Carolina trial court facili- 
ties in the 100 counties of the State. This was the cul- 
mination of a major three-year study project of the 
North Carolina State University School of Design, pur- 
suant to a contract with the Administrative Office of 
the Courts. Division staff carried out planning func- 
tions and contract administration for this project, col- 
lected significant portions of the data for the study, 
drafted portions of the report, and provided editorial 
review and approval on behalf of the Administrative 
Office of the Courts. 

During the year the Director of the Division made a 
study and analysis of the law of homicide in North 
Carolina as affected by recent decisions of the United 
State Supreme Court and prepared a special report on 
this subject for the North Carolina Judicial Council. 

The LEAA Grants Management Section was in- 
volved in the on-going administration of 24 LEAA- 
funded projects during the year. Applications for seven 
projects were prepared and approved for LEAA fund- 
ing by the Governor's Crime Commission (the State 
Planning Agency for LEAA purposes). In addition, the 



LEAA Grants Manager participated with representa- 
tives of the Governor's Crime Commission in a total of 
13 monitoring visits for review of various Judicial 
Department projects supported by LEAA funds. 



Systems Division 

This Division has the responsibility for development 
and implementation of an automated information sys- 
tem for the Judicial Department. 

The Division also handles the data entry and elec- 
tronic processing of case data which is reported weekly 
(on manually completed forms) by the clerks of superi- 
or court in the 100 counties to the Administrative 
Office of the Courts. In addition, the Division handles 
the data entry and electronic processing of manually 
reported information on juvenile services. During the 
fiscal year more than three million records of such in- 
formation were processed, providing on a periodic 
basis numerous computer-produced reports. (The sys- 
tem of manually reported data will be phased out as 
the Judicial Department's automated information sys- 
tem is implemented). 

Computer equipment was procured for the imple- 
mentation of the "criminal component" of the court 
information system for an initial twelve-county pilot 
region which includes Judicial Districts 7, 9, 10 and 1 1; 
and computer programming for the criminal compo- 
nent was developed and tested. 

Telecommunication lines were installed connecting 
the first two counties (Franklin and Vance) with the 
AOC computer facilities, and terminals and printers 
were installed in both of these counties. 

Training of clerk office personnel in the operation of 
the new automated system was begun in Franklin and 
Vance counties, with the implementation of the "crimi- 
nal component" of the system expected in the near 
future. 



39 



THE JUDICIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE 

(Members as of June 30, 1979)** 

Associate Justice J. Frank Huskins, Raleigh, Chairman 

Magistrate C. E. Baker, Holly Springs 

District Court Judge Thomas D. Cooper, Jr., Burling- 



Administrative Officer o( the Courts Bert M. Monta- 
gue, Raleigh 



ton 

District Attorney Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Reidsville 

Public Defender Wallace C. Harrelson, Greensboro 

Representative Edward S. Holmes, Pittsboro 

Clerk of Superior Court Rachel M. Joyner, Nashville 

Superior Court Judge Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lum- 
berton 



Chief Court of Appeals Judge Naomi E. Morris, 
Raleigh 



President of the N.C. State Bar Grady B. Scott, Gas- 
tonia 

President of the N.C. Bar Association Clarence 
Walker, Charlotte 

Senator Willis P. Whichard, Durham 



'All members serve at the pleasure of the Supreme Court. 



THE JUDICIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE IN 1978-79 



The North Carolina Judicial Planning Committee 
was appointed by the Supreme Court in 1977. The 
Committee considers problems affecting the operation 
of the State's courts, areas in need of improvement, 
and issues relevant to the court system as a whole. In 
addition, the Committee plays a special role in the allo- 
cation of LEAA funds available to the court system. 
Staff assistance for the Committee is provided by the 
Research and Planning Division of the Administrative 
Office of the Courts. 

During the 1978-79 fiscal year the Judicial Planning 
Committee considered reports on: 

(1) the special study of North Carolina courthouses 
and other judicial facilities (published in Septem- 
ber, 1978); 

(2) the coordination of attendance of witnesses at 
criminal trials in the several prosecutorial dis- 
tricts throughout the State; 

(3) the comparative need for additional district court 
judges in the first and 29th judicial districts; 

(4) the pilot-project "trial-court administrator' 1 pro- 
gram operating in the 10th, 22nd and 28th judi- 
cial districts. 

The Judicial Planning Committee also considered 
proposals for LEAA program funds for federal fiscal 



year 1979-80, and concluded that the following listed 
allocations of LEAA funds should be made: 

(1) $996,833 for continued development and imple- 
mentation of an electronic data processing sys- 
tem for North Carolina courts; 

(2) $62,825 for witness-attendance coordination pro- 
jects in several district attorneys' offices; 

(3) $69,000 for development and distribution oi a 
reference manual for clerk of superior court staff; 

(4) $7,100 for operating expenses for the Orange 
County Dispute Settlement Center; 

(5) $98,075 for specialized personnel in the Office of 
the Attorney General to handle criminal case 
appeals; 

(6) $157,000 for education and training of Judicial 
Department personnel working in the juvenile 
justice area; and 

(7) $25,950 for preparation and publication of a re- 
vised version of Rules of Procedure for Children 
in the District Court and a field manual for per- 
sonnel of the Juvenile Services Division. 

With the exception of some reduction in the amount 
for juvenile justice education and training, the Commit- 
tee's recommendations were adopted by the Governor's 
Crime Commission contingent upon the availability of 
federal funds in the anticipated amounts.* 



*These allocations were subsequently reduced by approximately 27% after a reduction, by the Congress, in the funds available under the 
LEAA program. 



41 



THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL 



Appointed by the Chief Justice 

Associate Justice James G. Exum, Jr., Raleigh 
Chairman 



Members as of June 30, 1979) 

Appointed by the Lieutenant Governor 

Senator Julian R. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids 
Senator Robert S. Swain, Asheville 



Superior Court Judge Henry A. McKinnon, 
Lumberton 

Superior Court Judge Lacy Thornburg, Webster 

Chief District Court Judge J. Milton Read, Jr., 
Durham 

District Attorney William Griffin, Jr., Williamston 

District Attorney James E. Roberts, Concord 

Appointed by the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals 

Court of Appeals Judge Earl W. Vaughn, Raleigh 

Appointed by the Governor 

Gerald W. Hayes, Jr., Dunn 
Robert C. Hunter, Marion 



Appointed by the Speaker of the House 

Representative H. Parks Helms, Charlotte 
Representative James F. Morgan, High Point 

Appointed by the Attorney General 

R. Bruce White, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, 
Raleigh 

Appointed by the Council of the N. C. State Bar 

W. Marion Allen, Elkin 
Leon Corbett, Burgaw 
Ann H. Phillips, Asheville 
Ralph H. Ramsey, Jr., Brevard 



Dallas A. Cameron, Jr., Assistant Director of the Administrative 
Office of the Courts, Executive Secretary 



THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL IN 1978-79 



The Judicial Council has been in continuous exist- 
ence since it was established by the 1949 General As- 
sembly. Statutory provisions relating to membership, 
terms of office, and the duties of the Council are set 
out in Article 31 of Chapter 7A of the General Stat- 
utes. 

Culminating work which started in 1978, the Judicial 
Council transmitted its report to the Governor and the 
General Assembly in March, 1979. The Council recom- 
mends enactment of bills providing: 

(1) for addition of an aggravating circumstance to 
the existing statutory list which is considered in 
capital cases; 

(2) for prohibition of conviction as an accessory be- 
fore the fact on an indictment which charged the 
defendant with the principal felony; 



(3) that punishment for burglary would be imprison- 
ment for not less than ten years or more than 
life; 

(4) for procedure for the selection of alternate 
jurors; 

(5) for revision of Article 6, Chapter 14 of the North 
Carolina General Statutes relating to homicide; 

(6) for extension of the time of coverage of a bail 
bond; and 

(7) for elimination of the use of a jury to determine 
sentences in capital cases where there is no aggra- 
vating circumstance. 

The first four of the above listed proposals were en- 
acted by the 1979 General Assembly. The latter three 
proposals listed above were held over for further con- 
sideration during the 1980 session of the General As- 
sembly. 



43 



THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 
(Members as of June 30, 1979) 



Appointed by the Chief Justice 

Court of Appeals Judge Edward B. Clark, Raleigh, Chairman 
Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro 
District Court Judge L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 

Appointed by the Governor 

Marvin B. Koonce, Jr., Raleigh 
Susan Whittington, Wilkesboro 

Appointed by the Council of the N.C. State Bar 

Jerome B. Clark, Jr., Fayetteville 
Robert G. Sanders, Charlotte 

Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary 



44 



THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 
July 1, 1978-June 30, 1979 



The Judicial Standards Commission was established 
by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional 
amendment approved by the voters at the general elec- 
tion in November, 1972. 

Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Su- 
preme Court may censure or remove any judge for wil- 
ful misconduct in office, wilful and persistent failure to 
perform his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction 
of a crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct preju- 
dicial to the administration of justice that brings the ju- 
dicial office into disrepute. In addition, upon recom- 
mendation of the Commission, the Supreme Court may 
remove any judge for mental or physical incapacity 
interfering with the performance of his duties, which is, 
or is likely to become, permanent. 

Where a recommendation for censure or removal in- 
volves a justice of the Supreme Court, the recommen- 
dation and supporting record is filed with the Court of 
Appeals which has and proceeds under the same au- 
thority for censure or removal of a judge. Such a pro- 
ceeding would be heard by the Chief Judge of the 
Court of Appeals and the six judges senior in service, 
excluding the Court of Appeals judge who by law 
serves as the Chairman of the Judicial Standards Com- 
mission. This procedure for the censure or removal of a 
justice of the Supreme Court became effective as of 30 
April 1979. (1979 Session Laws, c. 486). 

In addition to a recommendation of censure or re- 
moval, the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary 
measure known as a reprimand. The reprimand is a 
mechanism administratively developed for dealing with 
inquiries where the conduct involved does not warrant 
censure or removal, but where some action is justified. 
Since the establishment of the Judicial Standards Com- 
mission in 1973, reprimands have been issued in nine 
inquiries. 

During the 1 July 1978 - 30 June 1979 fiscal year, the 
Judicial Standards Commission met on the following 
dates: 25 August 1978, 27 October 1978, 26 January 
1979, 23 March 1979, and 29 June 1979. 



A complaint or other information against a judge, 
whether filed with the Commission or initiated by the 
Commission acting on its own motion, is designated as 
an "Inquiry Concerning a Judge." Three such inquiries 
were pending as of 1 July 1978, and 65 inquiries were 
filed during the fiscal year, giving the Commission a 
total workload of 68 inquiries. 

During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 
66 inquiries and two inquiries remained pending at the 
end of the fiscal year. The determinations of the Com- 
mission with regard to the 66 inquiries disposed of dur- 
ing the fiscal year were as follows: 

(1) 45 inquiries were determined to involve subject 
matter not within the Commission's jurisdiction; 

(2) 10 inquiries were determined to involve subject 
matter within the Commission's jurisdiction but 
not warranting further proceedings; 

(3) four inquiries were determined to warrant no 
further action following receipt of additional in- 
formation requested in order to clarify the nature 
of the inquiry; 

(4) five inquiries were determined to warrant no 
further action following completion of prelimi- 
nary investigations; and 

(5) two inquiries were determined to warrant the is- 
suance of a reprimand. 

The Supreme Court of North Carolina issued opin- 
ions during the 1 July 1978 - 30 June 1979 period relat- 
ing to recommendations by the Judicial Standards 
Commission filed prior to 1 July 1978. In In re Martin, 
295 N.C. 291 (1978), the Court declined to follow the 
recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission 
for removal and instead imposed a censure of the re- 
spondent judge. It did, however, concur with and ap- 
prove the Commission's recommendation for removal 
in In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109 (1978), thereby removing 
the respondent judge from office, disqualifying him 
from holding further judicial office, and making him 
ineligible to receive retirement benefits. 



45 



PART III 



COURT RESOURCES 



Financial 
Personnel 



^m 






s^ 



K^S 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Under the State Constitution the operating expenses 
of the Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts) 
"other than compensation to process servers and other 
locally paid non-judicial officers" are required to be 
paid from State funds. It is customary legislative prac- 
tice for the General Assembly to include appropria- 
tions for the operating expenses of all three branches of 
State government in a single budget bill, for a two-year 
period ending on June 30 of the odd-numbered years. 
In recent years, the General Assembly has customarily 
held a "short" session in even-numbered years and the 
budget for the second year of the biennium is generally 
modified during these short sessions. 

Building facilities for the appellate courts are provid- 
ed by State funds, but by statute the county govern- 
ments are required to provide from county funds for 
adequate facilites for the trial courts within each of the 
100 counties. 



State appropriations for the operating expenses of 
the Judicial Department for fiscal year July 1, 1978 
through June 30, 1979 totalled $63,685,178. These were 
appropriations from the State's general fund. General 
Fund appropriations for the operating expenses of all 
State agencies and departments, including the Judicial 
Department, totalled $2,452,011,095 for fiscal year, 
1978-79. (These do not include appropriations for capi- 
tal construction or appropriations from the Highway 
Fund for highway construction and repair.) 

As is illustrated in the chart below, General Fund 
appropriations for the operating expenses of the Judi- 
cial Department comprised 2.6% of the General Fund 
appropriations for the operating expenses of all State 
agencies and departments. 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
APPROPRIATION 

$63,685,178 




47 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Appropriations from the State's general fund for 
operating expenses of the Judicial Department over the 
past five fiscal years are shown in the table below and 
in the graph at the top of the following page. For com- 
parative purposes, appropriations from the general 



fund for operating expenses of all State agencies and 
departments (including the Judicial Department) for 
the last five fiscal years are also shown in the table 
below and in the second graph on the following page. 



APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES 



Judicial Department 



All State Agencies 



Fiscal Year 

1974- 1975 

1975- 1976 

1976- 1977 

1977- 1978 

1978- 1979 





% Increase over 




% Increase over 


Appropriation 


previous year 


Appropriation 


previous year 


$39,970,067 




$1,692,373,585 




42,908,242 


7.35% 


1,737,659,496 


2.68% 


47,218,782 


10.05% 


1,962,976,606 


12.97% 


56,319,115 


19.27% 


2,193,405,714 


11.74% 


63,685,178 


13.08% 


2,452,011,095 


11.79% 


REASE, 1974- 


1979 12.44% 




9.80% 



During the past decade, including the five-year peri- 
od covered by the above table, inflation has been a sig- 
nificant factor in the national economy. For example, 
during 1978-79, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics 
data, the average person spent $205.20 to pay for goods 
and services which could have been obtained for 
$100.00 in 1967. Therefore, if these appropriations are 
stated in 1967 dollars, the average annual increase in 
Judicial Department appropriations for the past five 



years would be 4.0% instead of 12.44% as reflected in 
the table above. 

The greatest percentage increase in Judicial Depart- 
ment appropriations during this period was for the 
1977-78 fiscal year. The increase for that year was due 
in large measure to a significant increase in the number 
of superior court judges (20%) and an increase in the 
number of assistant district attorneys (18%) for that 
year. 



4S 



GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES OF 
THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, 1974-75 — 1978-79 



$70,000,000 
$60,000,000 
$50,000,000 
$40,000,000 
$30,000,000 
$20,000,000 
$10,000,000 




$63,685,178 




1978- 
1979 



GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES OF ALL 
STATE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS, 1974-75 — 1978-79 



S2 
$2 
$2 
SI 
SI 



500,000,000 
250,000,000 
000,000,000 
,750,000,000 
,500,000,000 
,250,000,000 
,000,000,000 
750,000,000 
500,000,000 
250,000,000 




$2,452,011,095, 




1974- 
1975 



1975- 
1976 



1976- 
1977 



1977- 
1978 



1978- 

1979 



49 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES 
July 1, 1978 - June 30, 1979 



General Fund expenditures, rounded to the nearest 
dollar, for operating expenses of the Judicial Depart- 
ment during the 1978-79 fiscal year totalled 
$62,245,923, divided among the major budget classifi- 



cations as shown below. Expenditures for LEAA- 
funded projects in the Judicial Department totalled 
$2,584,907, for a grand total of $64,830,830 in Judicial 
Department expenditures. 



Supreme Court 
Court of Appeals 
Superior Courts 

(This classification includes judges, district attorneys, assistant district attorneys, court 

reporters, and staff personnel.) 
District Courts 

(This classification includesjudges, magistrates, and court reporters.) 
Clerks of Superior Court 

(This classification includes all 100 clerks and their staffs, juror fees, witness fees, and 

such support services as supplies, postage, telephone expenses, and office equipment for 

all local Judicial Department personnel.) 
Juvenile Probation and Aftercare 
Legal Representation for Indigents 

Assigned private counsel ($4,568,495) 

Public defenders ($1,149,780) 

Special counsel at mental hospitals ($162,354) 

Support services (transcripts, records, briefs) ($243,659) 
Administrative Office of the Courts 
Judicial Council 
Judicial Standards Commission 

Total General Fund Expenditures 

LEAA-Funded Projects 
GRAND TOTAL 

The distribution of General Fund expenditures 
among the major budget categories is illustrated in the 
chart on the following page. 





%of 


Amount 


Total 


1,173,674 


1.9% 


1,485,877 


2.4% 


12,377,669 


19.9% 


12,745,520 


20.5% 


21,457,921 


34.5% 



5,515,169 

6,124,288 



1,361,382 

1,921 

2,502 

62,245,923 

2,584,907 

64,830,830 



8.9S 
9.8'- 



2.1% 



100.0% 



50 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



DISTRICT COURTS 

20.5% 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 
THE COURTS 

2.1% 



CLERKS 
OF 

SUPERIOR 
COURT 

34.5% 




SUPERIOR COURTS 



COURT OF APPEALS 2.4 
SUPREME COURT 1.9% 



LEGAL REPRESENTATION 
FOR INDIGENTS 9.8% 



JUDICIAL COUNCIL 
JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 



JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 



As the chart illustrates, the bulk of Judicial Depart- 
ment expenditures goes for operation of the State's trial 
courts. Operation of the superior courts took 19.9% of 
total expenditures; this category includes expenditures 
for district attorneys and their staffs as well as superior 
court judges and court reporters. Operation of the dis- 
trict courts (including magistrates as well as judges and 
court reporters) took 20.5% of the total. An additional 
34.5% went to operate the 100 clerks of superior court 



offices, pay jurors' and witnesses 1 fees, and provide of- 
fice equipment and supplies and postage and telephone 
service for all judicial Department personnel at the 
local level. 

The total General Fund expenditures of $62,245,923 
for 1978-79 represents a 14% increase over expenditures 
of $54,454,339 in 1977-78. This increase is in keeping 
with recent trends, as illustrated in the chart below. 



GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES FOR JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
OPERATIONS, FISCAL YEARS 1974-75 — 1978-79 



$70,000,000 
$60,000,000 
$50,000,000 
$40,000,000 
$30,000,000 
$20,000,000 
$10,000,000 




$62,245,923 




1974-75 



1975-76 



1976-77 



1977-78 



1978-79 



51 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

DEPARTMENT RECEIPTS 
July 1, 1978 - June 30, 1979 



Receipts for the Judicial Department in the 1978-79 
fiscal year totalled $48,060,916.45. The several sources 
of these receipts are shown in the table below. As in the 
previous years, the major source of receipts is the as- 
sessment of "court costs" in superior and district 
courts, paid by litigants in accordance with the sched- 
ule of costs and fees set out in G.S. 7A-304 et seq.\ 



these payments constituted 62% of the total receipts 
during 1978-79. Fines and forfeitures made up 36.84% 
of the total. Receipts in the remaining categories - 
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals filing fees, sales 
of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Reports and 
payments on indigent representation judgments - 
made up less than two percent of the total. 



%of 



Source of Receipts 


Amount 


Total 


Supreme Court Fees 


$ 18,029.91 


0.04% 


Court of Appeals Fees 


23,471.47 


0.05% 


Superior and District 






Court Costs 


29,795,712.23 


61.99% 


Fines and Forfeitures 


17,703,927.28 


36.84% 


Sales of Appellate 






Division Reports 


145,314.31 


0.30% 


Payments on Indigent 






Representation 






Judgments 


374,460.75 


0.78% 


Total 


$48,060,916.45 


100.0% 



This total of $48,060,916.45 is an increase of 4.0% 
over total 1977-78 receipts of $46,204,962.18. As the 
graph below illustrates, this increase is comparable to 



increases in recent years in total Judicial Department 
receipts. 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT RECEIPTS, 1974-75 — 1978-79 



$60,000,000 
$50,000,000 
$40,000,000 
$30,000,000 
$20,000,000 
$10,000,000 

(I 



$41,250,936 



$46,204,962 $48.060.9 16. 




1974-75 



1975-76 



1976-77 



1977-78 



1978-79 



52 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EINANCES 



DISTRIBUTION OF JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT RECEIPTS 



As required by the State Constitution, fines, penal- 
ties and forfeitures collected by the courts in criminal 
cases are distributed to the respective counties in which 
the cases are tried. These funds must be used by the 
counties for the support of the public schools. 

A uniform schedule of court costs for civil and crimi- 
nal cases, comprised of a variety of fees, is set by stat- 
ute for cases filed in the superior and district courts. 
Statutes prescribe the distribution of these fees and 
provide that certain fees shall be devoted to specific 
uses. For example, a facilities fee is included in court 
costs when costs are assessed, and this fee is paid over 
to the respective county or municipality which provid- 
ed the facility used in the case. These fees must be util- 
ized by the counties and municipalities to provide and 
maintain courtrooms and related judicial facilities. 

Officer Fees (for arrest or service of process) are in- 
cluded, where applicable, in the costs of each case filed 
in the trial courts. If a municipal officer performed 
these services in a case, the fee is paid over to the re- 
spective municipality. Otherwise, all officer fees are 
paid to the respective counties in which the cases are 
filed. 



A jail fee is included in the costs of each case where 
applicable; and these fees are distributed to the respec- 
tive county or municipality whose facilities were used. 
Most jail facilities in the State are provided by the 
counties. 

A fee for the Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 
Retirement Fund is included as a part of court costs 
when costs are assessed in a criminal case. As required 
by statute, the Judicial Department remits these fees to 
the State Treasurer, for deposit in the Law Enforce- 
ment Officers Benefit and Retirement Fund. 

Except as indicated, all superior and district court 
costs collected by the Judicial Department are paid into 
the State's General Fund. 

When private counsel or a public defender is as- 
signed to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal 
case the trial judge sets the money value for the services 
rendered. If the defendant is convicted, a judgment lien 
is entered against him for such amount. Collections on 
these judgments are paid into the State's General Fund, 
as are appellate court fees and proceeds from the sales 
of appellate division reports. 



Remitted to State Treasurer 

Supreme Court Fees 

Court of Appeals Fees 

Sales of Appellate Division Reports 

Payments on Indigent Representation Judgments 

Law Enforcement Officers Benfit and 

Retirement Fund Fees 
Other Superior and District Court Fees 

Total to State Treasurer 

Distributed to Counties 

Fines and Forfeitures 
Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 

Total to Counties 

Distributed to Municipalities 

Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 

Total to Municipalities 

GRAND TOTAL 





%of 


Amount 


Total 


$ 18,029.91 


0.04% 


23,471.47 


0.05% 


145,314.31 


0.30% 


374,460.75 


.78% 


2,518,410.36 


5.24% 


20,685,467.90 


43.04% 


$23,765,154.70 


49.45% 


$17,703,927.78 


36.84% 


3,689,187.01 


7.67% 


1,619,218.04 


3.37% 


476,032.80 


0.99% 


$23,488,365.63 


48.87% 


$ 168,726.50 


0.35% 


621,035.62 


1.29% 


17,634.000 


0.04% 


$ 807,396.12 


1.68% 


$48,060,916.45 


100.00% 



53 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

AMOUNTS OF FEES, FINES AND FORFEITURES COLLECTED BY THE COURTS AND 

DISTRIBUTED TO COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES* 

July 1, 1978 — June 30, 1979 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 






Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Alamance 


$ 54,429.00 $ 


19,203.56 


$ 8,988.00 $ 


328,388.41 


$ -0- 


$ 13.623.00 


$ -0- 5 


424.631.97 


Alexander 


10,469.60 


5,479.00 


3,180.00 


53,782.50 


-0- 


206.00 


-0- 


73,117.10 


Alleghany 


4,299.50 


1,396.00 


511.00 


14,353.00 


-0- 


373.00 


-0- 


20,932.50 


Anson 


19,681.50 


10,128.00 


1,850.00 


77,724.28 


-0- 


973.00 


-0- 


110,356.78 


Ashe 


9,356.00 


6,463.00 


749.00 


40,034.33 


-0- 


58.00 


-0- 


56,660.33 


Avery 


8,233.00 


5,591.04 


1,477.00 


43,010.00 


-0- 


108.00 


-0- 


58,419.04 


Beaufort 


33,770.00 


20,736.78 


4,919.00 


161,109.26 


-0- 


4,261.00 


-0- 


224,796.04 


Bertie 


16,246.00 


11,901.36 


2,347.00 


74,452.58 


-0- 


584.00 


5.00 


105.535.94 


Bladen 


26,440.00 


17,271.00 


3,865.99 


134,753.93 


1,968.00 


1,315.00 


-0- 


185.613.92 


Brunswick 


17,631.00 


9,769.50 


1,937.55 


85,767.50 


2,340.00 


350.00 


-0- 


117,795.55 


Buncombe 


96,826.40 


51,998.35 


15,428.00 


503,771.17 


-0- 


16,516.00 


-0- 


684,539.92 


Burke 


41,809.00 


16,695.00 


2,608.25 


196,697.30 


-0- 


3.410.00 


-0- 


261,219.55 


Cabarrus 


53,541.50 


33,392.46 


5,595.00 


205,057.30 


-0- 


3,580.00 


-0- 


301,166.26 


Caldwell 


36,239.00 


13,108.00 


6,361.00 


177,687.11 


-0- 


4,278.00 


-0- 


237,673.11 


Camden 


3,481.00 


2,168.00 


110.00 


25,089.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


30,848.00 


Carteret 


28,334.00 


12,447.00 


1,062.00 


198,024.45 


-0- 


4,434.00 


-0- 


244,301.45 


Caswell 


10,012.00 


6,878.00 


1,195.00 


45,054.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


63, 1 39.00 


Catawba 


32,990.50 


20,250.50 


6,876.00 


302,715.69 


34,471.50 


12.093.00 


2.821.00 


412.218.19 


Chatham 


13,673.00 


13,208.00 


1,550.00 


104,151.00 


8,020.00 


1,254.00 


595.00 


142,451.00 


Cherokee 


8,899.00 


4,760.00 


1,262.00 


56,332.69 


-0- 


372.00 


55.00 


71,680.69 


Chowan 


9,462.00 


4,556.00 


882.00 


58,242.00 


-0- 


1,424.00 


-0- 


74.566.00 


Clay 


2,539.00 


1,696.00 


371.00 


18,946.00 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


23.552.00 


Cleveland 


47,113.00 


17,561.00 


9,082.00 


206,447.21 


-0- 


6,981.00 


65.00 


287,249.21 


Columbus 


40,297.00 


29,352.00 


10,739.77 


238,845.41 


3,050.00 


2,759.00 


545.00 


325.588.18 


Craven 


57,540.00 


23,518.50 


7,705.29 


284,868.50 


-0- 


7,434.00 


-0- 


381,066.29 


Cumberland 


172,501.60 


59,069.40 


31,074.00 


1,015,813.93 


-0- 


32,914.95 


-0- 


1.311,373.88 


Currituck 


11,018.00 


8,073.03 


522.90 


78,443.92 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


98,057.85 


Dare 


16,184.00 


7,035.00 


1,152.00 


153,861.12 


-0- 


2.334.00 


-0- 


180,566.12 


Davidson 


49,065.54 


27,560.72 


8,895.00 


269,580.88 


6,872.00 


2,435.00 


-0- 


364,409.14 


Davie 


17,196.00 


9,112.00 


1,257.16 


72,700.90 


-0- 


1,200.00 


-0- 


101,466.06 


Duplin 


29,630.00 


13,412.00 


1,920.00 


138,449.00 


-0- 


1,080.00 


593.00 


185,134.00 


Durham 


122,607.00 


31,323.50 


5,124.00 


353,942.70 


-0- 


30,709.00 


-0- 


543,706.20 


Edgecombe 


28,548.00 


22,779.00 


7,651.50 


162,072.21 


10,265.00 


6,176.00 


1,270.00 


238,761.71 


Forsyth 


174,123.00 


27,035.00 


17,118.00 


633,627.59 


2,654.00 


57,283.00 


-0- 


911,840.59 


Franklin 


20,682.00 


10,670.00 


2,075.00 


94,089.50 


-0- 


304.00 


100.00 


127,920.50 


Gaston 


79,146.00 


39,018.00 


13,456.75 


351,041.72 


-0- 


13,988.00 


-0- 


496,740.47 


Gates 


8,457.00 


5,077.00 


530.00 


36,185.00 


-0- 


94.00 


-0- 


50.343.00 


Graham 


2,757.00 


1,656.00 


650.00 


13,940.66 


-0- 


80.00 


-0- 


19,083.66 


Granville 


21,672.00 


8,710.00 


2,799.00 


116,734.00 


-0- 


1,843.00 


295.00 


152.053.00 


Greene 


7,658.00 


4,784.00 


1,220.00 


39,458.00 


-0- 


84.00 


-0- 


53,204.00 


Guilford 


221,573.10 


34,602.00 


24,578.50 


661,986.18 


-0- 


66,203.00 


-0- 


1,008,942.78 


Halifax 


38,710.00 


- 26,871.00 


5,757.00 


259,210.80 


4,605.00 


3,603.00 


737.00 


339,493.80 


Harnett 


28,777.00 


15,148.00 


2,764.00 


164,426.24 


7,778.0 


3,499.80 


1,286.00 


223,679.04 


Haywood 


24,764.10 


14,657.00 


844.50 


185,824.41 


1,1 14.00 


1.570.00 


2.00 


228,776.01 


Henderson 


30,077.50 


14,654.00 


5,973.00 


150,405.42 


-0- 


2,524.00 


-0- 


203.633.92 


Hertford 


21,736.00 


13,123.20 


2,687.00 


97,475.42 


-0- 


1,748.00 


-0- 


136,769.62 


Hoke 


14,825.00 


8,135.00 


3,636.00 


110,196.00 


-0- 


378.00 


-0- 


137,170.00 


Hyde 


2,859.00 


1,760.00 


85.00 


19,525.50 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


24,229.50 


Iredell 


42,326.00 


19,071.75 


3,157.00 


218,721.903 


7.977.00 


6,137.00 


773.00 


298,163.65 


Jackson 


11,391.00 


7,364.86 


1,530.00 


86,435.003 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


106,720.86 


Johnston 


43,541.50 


28,270.00 


8.726.25 


273,352.923 


8,631.00 


3.578.00 


756.00 


366,855.67 


Jones 


6,573.00 


3,158.00 


475.00 


37,667.653 


-0- 


520.00 


-0- 


48,393.65 


* Facility and 


ail lees are distributed t 


i the respecth 


e counties and 


municipalities u 


hich lurnisht 


d the facilities. 


If the officer 


\ ho made the 


arrest or served the process was employed by a municipality, the c 


fficer fee is distributed to the 


municipality ; 


Hherw ise all ( 


fficer lees are 


distributed to 


the respective counties. 


By provision 


ol the State Constitution, lines 


and forfeitures collected by 


the courts v\ 


thin a count) 


are distributee 


to the county tor support of the p 


ihhe schools. 













54 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

AMOUNTS OF FEES, FINES AND FORFEITURES COLLECTED BY THE COURTS AND 

DISTRIBUTED TO COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES* 

July 1, 1978 — June 30, 1979 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 






Fees 


Fees 


K'cs 


Forfeitures 


lees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Lee 


26,681.00 


13,418.15 


6,361.00 


97,197.91 


-()- 


4,889.00 


-0- 


148,547.06 


Lenoir 


45,658.00 


15.855.00 


6,525.00 


202,789.25 


-0- 


5,740.00 


-0- 


276,567.25 


Lincoln 


20,921.00 


12,572.00 


418.00 


66,621.00 


-0- 


442.00 


-0- 


100,974.00 


Macon 


10,038.00 


6,269.96 


600.00 


101,050.80 


-0- 


427.00 


-0- 


118,385.76 


Madison 


6,900.00 


4,362.00 


1,234.00 


33,335.00 


-0- 


48.00 


-0- 


45,879.00 


Martin 


18,285.00 


10,608.00 


380.00 


85.426.50 


-0- 


1,412.00 


-0- 


116.111.50 


McDowell 


21,604.55 


12,443.75 


5,077.00 


141.905.73 


-0- 


974.00 


-0- 


182,005.03 


Mecklenburg 


268.350.75 


104,637.05 


68.00 


986.036.45 


-0- 


54,113.00 


-0- 


1.413.205.25 


Mitchell 


5,228.00 


3,017.00 


891.00 


26,708.00 


-0- 


350.00 


-0- 


36,194.00 


Montgomery 


20,722.00 


14,406.00 


4,310.00 


62,707.40 


-0- 


611.00 


-0- 


102,756.40 


Moore 


28,658.00 


20,289.00 


1,960.00 


165,782.55 


5,632.00 


2,716.00 


666.00 


225.703.55 


Nash 


30,196.63 


24,533.02 


5,221.00 


212,686.62 


15,697.00 


5,720.00 


1,65.00 


295.713.27 


New Hanover 


75,116.25 


17,536.30 


9,755.00 


371,945.97 


-0- 


14,860.00 


570.00 


489.783.52 


Northampton 


20,923.00 


13,890.00 


2,433.00 


112.971.68 


-0- 


742.00 


-0- 


150,959.68 


Onslow 


74,255.12 


35,653.71 


29,741.10 


518,355.17 


-0- 


6,542.00 


-0- 


664,547.10 


Orange 


31,162.00 


15.508.00 


2.252.95 


177.679.06 


8.756.00 


8,433.97 


180.00 


243,961.98 


Pamlico 


5,315.00 


3,332.00 


1,240.00 


45,960.94 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


55,847.94 


Pasquotank 


18,868.00 


6,777.00 


1,530.00 


122.785.00 


-0- 


4,369.00 


-0- 


154,329.00 


Pender 


15,452.50 


8,345.00 


3,220.00 


115.788.88 


-0- 


1 , 1 30.00 


-0- 


143,936.38 


Perquimans 


5,895.00 


3,028.00 


1,020.00 


37.829.70 


-0- 


626.00 


-0- 


48,398.70 


Person 


17,648.00 


6,475.00 


1,890.00 


88,495.50 


900.00 


2,066.00 


-0- 


117,474.50 


Pitt 


57.919.00 


19,250.95 


7,138.00 


283.196.64 


6.58.00 


14,161.00 


1,007.00 


389,130.59 


Polk 


8,322.90 


5,431.00 


2,040.00 


73,550.50 


306.00 


-0- 


89,650.40 




Randolph 


40.178.00 


29,502.59 


4.159.00 


159,565.84 


1,288.00 


2,889.00 


-0- 


237,582.43 


Richmond 


32,360.20 


15,191.00 


5,031.00 


156,552.90 


-0- 


1,571.00 


-0- 


210,706.10 


Robeson 


61,352.5 


38.062.78 


14,367.00 


443,357.88 


10,815.00 


21,847.00 


1,941.00 


591,743.16 


Rockingham 


38,179.00 


21,679.00 


4,277.00 


219,270.60 


13,489.00 


9,358.00 


456.00 


306,708.60 


Rowan 


51,010.00 


30,236.28 


3,809.50 


214.135.05 


-0- 


6,246.00 


-0- 


305.436.83 


Rutherford 


21,237.00 


9,106.00 


6,239.80 


126,162.75 


-0- 


1,604.00 


-0- 


164,349.55 


Sampson 


48,502.18 


32,448.00 


8,061.00 


219,603.83 


-0- 


1,912.00 


-0- 


310,527.01 


Scotland 


26,058.00 


13,947.00 


4,631.00 


134,894.00 


-0- 


3,388.00 


-0- 


182,918.00 


Stanly 


31,533.00 


10,680.00 


4,017.00 


156,879.22 


-0- 


3,202.00 


-0- 


206,311.22 


Stokes 


16,399.00 


9,246.70 


2,050.00 


65,501.50 


-0- 


396.00 


-0- 


93,773.20 


Surry 


36,241.00 


24,853.38 


3,215.00 


175,419.65 


1.176.00 


4,932.00 


710.00 


246,547.03 


Swain 


7,334.00 


3,904.75 


2,081.00 


43,646.00 


-0- 


146.00 


-0- 


57,111.75 


Transylvania 


12,626.00 


8,669.35 


1,696.00 


54,172.33 


-0- 


922.00 


-0- 


78,085.68 


Tyrrell 


2,386.00 


1,442.00 


200.00 


8,718.16 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


12,746.16 


Union 


36,225.00 


21,794.00 


7,246.35 


192,173.69 


-0- 


3,778.00 


0- 


261,217.04 


Vance 


25,495.00 


9,858.00 


2,657.00 


95,995.00 


-0- 


2,523.00 


-0- 


136,528.00 


Wake 


225,324.33 


42,634.00 


25,928.69 


835,033.47 


3,161.00 


76,149.90 


547.00 


1,208,778.39 


Warren 


11,391.85 


6,676.00 


1,063.0 


41,648.00 


-0- 


298.00 


-0- 


61,076.85 


Washington 


9,368.00 


5,479.00 


290.00 


45,417.00 


-0- 


518.00 


-0- 


61,072.00 


Watauga 


16,896.20 


9,085.00 


2,773.00 


99,321.25 


-0- 


1,848.00 


-0- 


129,923.45 


Wayne 


66,286.00 


21,816.00 


4,415.00 


247,685.10 


1,619.00 


10,009.00 


-0- 


351,830.10 


Wilkes 


36,571.50 


16,778.57 


6,015.00 


141,664.45 


-0- 


478.00 


-0- 


201.507.52 


Wilson 


37,032.00 


24,139.24 


6,725.00 


173,279.67 


-0- 


8,731.090 


-0- 


259,906.91 


Yadkin 


16,771.21 


7,795.00 


1,825.00 


64,119.00 


-0- 


628.00 


-0- 


91,138.21 


Yancey 


6,600.00 


4,719.00 


1,555.00 


28,382.00 


-0- 


312.00 


-0- 


41,568.00 


STATE TOTALS 


$3,689,187.01 


$1,619,218.04 


$476,032.80 $17,703,927.78 


$168,726.50 


$621,035.62 


$17,634.00 


$24,295,761.75 



* Facility and jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and municipalities u hich furnished the facilities, II the officer w ho made the 
arrest or served the process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise all officer lees arc- 
distributed to the respective counties. By provision of the State Constitution, fines and forfeitures collected b\ the courts within a count) 
are distributed to the counts for support of the public schools. 



55 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

COST AND CASE DATA ON REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENTS 

July 1, 1978 — June 30, 1979 



The State provides legal counsel for indigent persons in 
a variety of actions and proceedings, as specified in the 
North Carolina General Statutes, Section 7A-450 et 
seq. These include criminal proceedings, judicial hospi- 
talization proceedings, juvenile proceedings which may 
result in commitment to an institution or transfer to su- 
perior court for trial as an adult. Legal representation 
for indigents may be by assignment of private counsel, 
by assignment of special public counsel (involving men- 
tal hospital commitments), or by assignment of a pub- 
lic defender. 

Five of North Carolina's judicial districts have an 
office of public defender: Districts 12, 18, 26, 27A, and 
28. The other 28 districts utilize only assignments of 
private counsel. Private counsel may also be assigned in 
the five districts which have a public defender in the 
event of a conflict of interests involving the public de- 
fender's office and the indigent and in the event of un- 
usual circumstances when, in the opinion of the court, 
the proper administration of justice requires the assign- 
ment of private counsel rather than the public defender 
in those cases. 

In addition, the State provides a full-time special 
counsel at each of the State's four mental hospitals, to 
represent patients in commitment or recommitment 



hearings before a district court judge. Under North 
Carolina law, each patient committed to a mental hos- 
pital is entitled to a judicial hearing (before a district 
court judge) within 90 days after the initial commit- 
ment, a further hearing within 180 days after the initial 
commitment, and thereafter a hearing once each year 
during the continuance of an involuntary commitment. 

Finally, the State provides a guardian ad litem for 
children alleged in juvenile petitions to be neglected un- 
less the court finds that the child is not in need of and 
cannot benefit from such representation. 1 By statute 
the guardian ad litem is a licensed attorney and is com- 
pensated for his services in the same way as compensa- 
tion is provided for representation of an indigent 
person. 

The cost of the entire program of indigent represen- 
tation, rounded to the nearest dollar, was $6,124,288 in 
the 1978-79 fiscal year, compared to $5,162,652 in the 
1977-78 fiscal year, an increase of 18.6 percent. The to- 
tal amount expended for representation of indigents 
was 9.8% of total Judicial Department expenditures in 
the 1978-79 fiscal year. 

Following is a summary of case and cost data for 
representation of indigents, for the fiscal year, July 1, 
1978 through June 30, 1979. 



'G.S. 7A-283. Effective January 1, 1980, this section will be repealed and replaced by a new section, G.S. 7A-546, which will provide for 
the appointment of a guardian ad litem in all cases in which a petition alleges either neglect or "abuse." 1979 Session Laws, Chapter 81?. 



56 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



COST AND CASE DATA ON REPRESENTATION OE INDIGENTS 
July 1, 1978 - June 30, 1979 



Assigned Private Counsel 

Capital offense cases 
Adult cases (other than capital) 
Juvenile cases 

As guardian ad litem for juveniles 
Totals 

Public Defender Offices 

District 12 
District 18 
District 26 
District 27A 
District 28 
Totals 

Special counsel at mental hospitals 

Transcripts, records and briefs 

Expert witness fees 

Grand Total 



Number 


Total 


Average Cost 


of Cases 


Cost 


Per Case 


171 


$ 185,236 


$1,083.25 


24,920 


4,080,358 




163.74 


2,500 


150,573 




60.23 


1,407 


152,328 




108.26 


28,998 


$4,568,495 


$ 


157.55 


1,520 


$ 238,394 


$ 


156.84 


2,453 


295,651 




120.53 


4,322 


284,572 




65.84 


1,169 


188,674 




161.40 


1,508 


142,489 




94.49 


10,972 


$1,149,780 
$ 162,354 
$ 238,320 
$ 5,339 
$6,124,288 


$ 


104.79 



As previously noted, private counsel may be utilized 
to represent indigents in those districts which have a 
public defender. Following is a comparison of case and 



cost data of the public defender offices with that of as- 
signed private counsel in the five districts which have a 
public defender. 



Public Defenders 



District 12 
District 18 
District 26 
District 27A 
District 28 

Totals 



Assigned Private Counsel 



Number 


Total 


Average 


Number 


Total 


Average 


of Cases 


Cost 


Case Cost 


of Cases 


Cost 


Case Cost 


1,520 


$ 238,394 


$156.84 


202 


$ 56,831 


$281.34 


2,453 


295,651 


120.53 


489 


64,085 


1 3 1 .05 


4,322 


284,572 


65.84 


911 


167,082 


183.41 


1,169 


188,674 


161.40 


88 


19,174 


217.89 


1,508 


142,489 


94.49 


121 


20,947 


173.12 


10,972 


$1,149,780 


$104.79 


1,811 


$328,119 


$181.08 



57 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



The total cost of providing special counsel at each of 
the State's four mental hospitals, to represents patients 
in commitment or recommitment hearings, was 
$162,354 for the 1978-79 fiscal year. There were a total 
of 10,575 hearings held during the year, for an average 
cost per hearing of $15.35. 



The following presents data on the hearings held at 
each of the mental hospitals in 1978-79. The total num- 
ber of hearings held in 1978-79 represents a decrease of 
less than one percent compared to the 10,588 hearings 
held in 1977-78. 



Initial Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Totals 

First Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Totals 

Second or Subsequent Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 

Totals 

Modification of Prior Order Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Totals 

Total Hearings or Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Totals 



oughton 


Cherry 


Dorothea Dix 


John Imstead 


Total 


501 


1,331 


411 


657 


2,900 


43 


183 


3 


77 


306 


2,257 


1,247 


627 


1,190 


5,321 


2,801 


2,761 


1,041 


1,924 


8,527 


54 


148 


105 


192 


499 


1 








9 


10 


81 


60 


30 


138 


309 


136 


208 


135 


339 


818 


ss 


275 


404 


282 


1,046 











1 


1 


23 


21 


17 


56 


117 


108 


296 


421 


339 


1,164 


2 


27 





2 


31 


3 


3 








6 


(i 


2') 








29 


5 


59 





2 


66 


642 


1,781 


920 


1,133 


4,476 


47 


186 


3 


87 


323 


2,361 


1,357 


674 


1,384 


5.776 


3,050 


3,324 


1,597 


2,604 


10,575 



The following table compares the number of as- 
signed private counsel cases and expenditures in each 
county and judicial district for fiscal years 1977-78 and 
1978-79. There was a substantial increase in the num- 
ber of cases for the State as a whole, from 26,026 cases 
in 1977-78 to 28,998 cases in 1978-79, an increase of 
11.4%. Expenditures increased by 21.9%, from 
$3,748,334 in 1977-78 to $4,568,495 in 1978-79. 



By far the largest increases in both the number of 
cases handled by assigned private counsel and expendi- 
tures for the services occurred in District 27B, where 
the number of cases rose by nearly 600% and expendi- 
tures increased by over 350%. This is due to the fact 
that prior to the division of Districts 27A and 27B on 
July 1, 1978, the public defender's office which now 
serves only District 27A provided representation for in- 
digents in District 27B as well. 



58 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

ASSIGNED COUNSEL — NUMBERS OF CASES AND EXPENDITURES 

Fiscal Years 1977-78 and 1978-79 



Number of Cases 



District I 

Camden 
Chowan 
Currituck 
Dare 
Gates 

Pasquotank 
Perquimans 
District Totals 

District 2 

Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrell 
Washington 
District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Pamlico 
Pitt 

District Totals 

District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 

District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 

Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 
District Totals 

District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 



1977-78 

I I 
54 
62 
26 
12 

147 
45 

357 



177 
10 
92 
I I 
53 

343 



208 

287 

32 

637 

1,164 



198 

74 

670 

260 

1,202 



436 

66 

502 



144 
359 
164 

85 
752 



328 
284 
350 
962 



1978-79 

2d 
61 
58 
61 
30 

158 
4^ 

435 



11 3 
350 
156 
67 
686 



% Increase 
or Decrease 

+ 81.8% 
+ 13.0% 
- 6.5% 
+ 134.6% 
+ 150.0% 
+ 7.5% 
+ 4.4% 
+ 21.8% 



178 


+ 


0.6% 


16 


+ 


60.0% 


122 


+ 


32.6% 


19 


+ 


72.7% 


49 


— 


7.5% 


384 


+ 


12.0% 



204 


- 


1 .9% 


377 


+ 


3 1 .4% 


33 


+ 


3.1% 


680 


+ 


6.8% 


1,294 


+ 


11.2% 


183 




7.6% 


92 


+ 


24.3% 


633 


- 


5.5% 


277 


+ 


6.5% 


1,185 




1.4% 


454 


+ 


4.1% 


54 


- 


18.2% 


508 


+ 


1.2% 



21.5% 
2.5% 
4.9% 

21.2% 
8.8% 



441 


+ 


34.5% 


393 


+ 


38.4% 


383 


+ 


9.4%. 


1,217 


+ 


26.5% 





Expenc 


itures 


%I 
or I 


icrease 




1977-78 




1978-79 


(ecrease 


S 


1.420 


$ 


3,572 


+ 


51.59? 




10,141 




11,235 


+ 


10.89? 




9,193 




10,828 


+ 


17.8% 




4.807 




14.402 


+ 199.6% 




1,723 




5,838 


+ . 


238.8% 




18,626 




23,370 


+ 


25.5%. 




7,482 




4,185 


+ 


22.8% 


S 


53,392 


s 


78,430 


+ 


46.9% 


$ 


24,850 


$ 


29,948 


+ 


20.5% 




1,755 




2,624 


+ 


49.5% 




16,897 




16,223 


- 


4.0% 




1,144 




2,355 


+ 105.99? 




6,494 




7.477 


+ 


15.1% 


$ 


51,140 




58,627 


+ 


14.6% 


$ 


36,951 


s 


32,867 




11.1 % 




33.598 




64,466 


+ 


Ml 99? 




3.235 




4.672 


+ 


44.4', 




104.71 1 




140.515 


+ 


34.2% 


s 


178,495 


$ 


242,520 


+ 


35.9% 


$ 


33.710 


S 


39.405 


+ 


16.9% 




10,126 




14,698 


+ 


45.2% 




89,976 




1 1 9,004 


+ 


32.3% 




45,638 




51.213 


+ 


12.2% 


s 


179,450 


$ 


224,320 


+ 


25.0% 


$ 


102,414 


s 


101,470 




0.9%. 




8,680 




8,534 


- 


1 .7% 


s 


111,094 


$ 


110.004 




1 .0% 


s 


16.522 


$ 


14,295 




13.5%. 




45,359 




48,214 


+ 


6.3% 




24,486 




19,521 


- 


20.3% 




14,421 




9,286 


- 


35.6%. 


s 


100,788 


S 


91,316 




9.4% 


$ 


54,624 


$ 


87,228 


+ 


59.7% 




54,731 




77,254 


+ 


41.2% 




72,583 




73,408 


+ 


1.1% 


s 


181,938 


$ 


237,890 


+ 


30.8% 



59 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

ASSIGNED COUNSEL — NUMBERS OF CASES AND EXPENDITURES 

Fiscal Years 1977-78 and 1978-79 





Number ot ( ases 


% li 
or D 


lcrcasc 


District 8 


1977-78 


1978-79 


ccrease 


Greene 


68 


71 


+ 


4.4% 


Lenoir 


422 


558 


+ 


32.2% 


Wayne 


548 


707 


+ 


29.0%, 


District Totals 


1,038 


1 ,336 


+ 


28.7% 


District 9 










Franklin 


169 


180 


+ 


6.5%, 


Granville 


266 


210 


- 


21.1% 


Person 


196 


134 


- 


3 1 .6% 


Vance 


309 


287 


- 


7.1% 


Warren 


106 


115 


+ 


8.5% 


District Totals 


1,046 


926 


- 


11.5'r 



Kxpenditures 


', li 
or D 


icrease 


1977-78 




1978-79 


ecrease 


8.079 


$ 


12.300 


+ 


52.2%, 


50,49 1 




67.926 


+ 


34.5% 


73,067 




108.414 


+ 


48.4% 


131,637 


S 


188,640 


+ 


43.3% 


22, 1 39 


$ 


29,569 


+ 


33.6% 


34.702 




36,867 


+ 


6.2% 


26,488 




25.196 


- 


4.9% 


38,675 




42,965 


+ 


11.1% 


13,628 




16.921 


+ 


24.2% 


135,632 


s 


151,518 


+ 


11.7% 



District 10 
Wake 



1,814 



1,897 



+ 4.6% 



$ 208,212 $ 271,290 



+ 30.3% 



District II 



Harnett 


171 


236 


+ 38.09? 


Johnston 


451 


491 


+ 8.9% 


Lee 


163 


224 


+ 37.49? 


District Totals 


785 


951 


+ 21.1% 


District 12 








Cumberland 


180 


180 


0.0% 


Hoke 


30 


22 


- 26.7% 


District Totals 


210 


202 


- 3.8% 


District 13 








Bladen 


186 


228 


+ 22.6% 


Brunswick 


142 


117 


- 17.6% 


Columbus 


386 


471 


+ 22.0% 


District Totals 


714 


816 


+ 14.3% 



24,866 $ 37,448 + 50.6% 

38.717 48.198 +2 4.5% 

20.818 27.004 + 29.7% 

84,401 $ 112,650 + 33.5% 



44.578 


$ 


53,731 


+ 


20.5% 


3,470 




3.100 


- 


10.7% 


48,048 


S 


56,831 


+ 


18.3% 


25,589 


$ 


29.173 


+ 


14.0% 


20,100 




17.552 


- 


12.7% 


50,063 




57.501 


+ 


14.9% 


95,752 


S 


104,226 


+ 


8.8% 



District 14 
Durham 



1,415 



1,401 



1.0% 



$ 208,594 $ 228.282 



+ 9.4% 



District I5A 
Alamance 

District I5B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 

District 16 

Robeson 
Scotland 

District Totals 



583 



106 
334 
440 



673 
234 
907 



622 


+ 


6.7% 


115 


+ 


8.5% 


459 


+ 


37.49? 


574 


+ 


30.5% 


697 


+ 


3.6% 


260 


+ 


11.19? 


957 


+ 


5.5', 



$ 100,824 $ 103.095 



+ 2.3% 



s 


19.922 


$ 


17.913 


- 


10.1% 




56,775 




93.152 


+ 


64.1% 


s 


76,697 


S 


111.065 


+ 


44.8% 


s 


107,371 


$ 


33S.943 


+ 


10.8% 




30.095 




36.314 


+ 


20.7% 


s 


137.466 


s 


155,257 


+ 


12.9% 



60 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

ASSIGNED COUNSEL — NUMBERS OF CASES AND EXPENDITURES 

Fiscal Years 1977-78 and 1978-79 





Number ot 


C ases 


% Increase 




1977-78 


1978-79 


or Decrease 


District 17 








Caswell 


88 


117 


+ 33.0% 


Rockingham 


454 


428 


- 5.7% 


Stokes 


116 


82 


- 29.3% 


Surry 


331 


347 


+ 4.8% 


District Totals 


989 


974 


- 1.5% 



Ex pen 


ditures 


% Increase 


1977-78 




1978-79 


or Decrease 


15,594 


$ 


24,515 


+ 57.2 f! J 


73.382 




73,387 


+ 0.0%. 


20,449 




1 2.949 


- 36.77c 


47,772 




56,073 


+ 17.49? 


157,197 


S 


166,924 


+ 6.2% 



District 18 
Guilford 



267 



489 



+ 83.1% 



S 64,085 $ 110,285 



+ 72.1% 



District 19 A 



Cabarrus 


436 


487 


+ 


11.7% 


Rowan 


735 


838 


+ 


14.0% 


District Totals 


1,171 


1,325 


+ 


13.2% 


District 19B 










Montgomery 


182 


165 


- 


9.3% 


Randolph 


281 


367 


+ 


30.6% 


District Totals 


463 


532 


+ 


14.9% 


District 20 










Anson 


231 


244 


+ 


5.6% 


Moore 


243 


318 


+ 


30.9% 


Richmond 


305 


418 


+ 


37.0% 


Stanly 


203 


322 


+ 


58.6% 


Union 


395 


390 


- 


1.3% 


District Totals 


1,377 


1,692 


+ 


22.9% 



63,423 




87,677 


+ 


38.2% 


76,102 




95,557 


+ 


25.6% 


139,525 


S 


183,234 


+ 


31.3% 


26.49 1 


$ 


24,467 




7.6% 


42,672 




83,354 


+ 


95.3% 


69,163 


S 


107,821 


+ 


55.9% 


34,483 


$ 


34.778 


+ 


0.9% 


28.903 




39,128 


+ 


35.4% 


37,702 




54,577 


+■ 


44.8% 


34,707 




48,562 


+ 


39.9% 


50,663 




43,851 


- 


13.4% 


186.458 


S 


220,896 


t 


18.5% 



District 21 
Forsyth 



2,053 



2,245 



9.4% 



$ 240,385 $ 271,590 



13.0% 



District 22 



Alexander 


130 


95 


- 


26.9%. 


Davidson 


473 


480 


+ 


1.5%. 


Davie 


59 


85 


+ 


44.1% 


Iredell 


357 


338 


- 


5.3% 


District Totals 


1,019 


998 


— 


2.1% 


District 23 










Alleszhanv 


24 


26 


+ 


8.3% 


Ashe 


II 1 


88 


- 


20.7% 


Wilkes 


194 


287 


+ 


47.9% 


Yadkin 


79 


103 


- 


30.4% 


District Totals 


408 


504 


+ 


23.5% 



$ 


26.371 


S 


19.893 


- 


24.6% 




7 1 ,09 1 




75.363 


+ 


6.0% 




9,176 




15,238 


+ 


66.1% 




50,254 




51.1 80 


+ 


1.8% 


S 


156.892 


$ 


161,674 


+ 


3.0% 


$ 


2.525 


$ 


4.127 


+ 


63.4% 




25,252 




9,495 


- 


62.4% 




28,126 




32.627 


+ 


16.0% 




15,289 




10,018 


- 


34.5% 



S 71,192 $ 56,267 



21.0% 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

ASSIGNED COUNSEL — NUMBERS OF CASES AND EXPENDITURES 

Fiscal Years 1977-78 and 1978-79 







Number 01 


( ases 


% In 
or De 


:rease 




1977-78 


1978-79 


crease 


District 24 












Avery 




80 


103 


+ 


28.8% 


Madison 




46 


67 


+ 


45.7% 


Mitchell 




39 


71 


+ 


82.1% 


Watauga 




105 


112 


+ 


6.7% 


Yancey 




52 


34 


- 


34.6% 


District 


Totals 


322 


387 


+ 


20.2% 


District 25 












Burke 




389 


472 


+ 


21.3% 


Caldwell 




370 


409 


+ 


10.5% 


Catawba 




634 


603 


- 


4.9% 


District Totals 


1,393 


1,484 


+ 


6.5% 



District 


26 


Mecklenburg 


District 


27 A 


Gaston 




District 


27 B 



Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 

District 28 
Buncombe 

District 29 

Henderson 
McDowell 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 
District Totals 

District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Sw ain 

District Totals 

STATE TOTALS 



792 



91 



226 
199 

64 
171 

93 
753 



107 
14 
21 

178 
79 
90 
57 

546 

26,026 



911 



88 



+ 15.0% 



- 3.3% 



37 


285 


+670.3% 


31 


184 


+ 493.5 f v 


68 


469 


+ 589.7% 


80 


12! 


+ 51.3% 



334 


+ 


47.8% 


I'M 


- 


3.0% 


48 


- 


25.0% 


1 88 


+ 


9.9% 


111 


+ 


19.4% 


874 


+ 


16.1% 



79 


- 


26.2% 


21 


+ 


50.0%. 


is 


- 


14.3% 


240 


+ 


34.8% 


52 


- 


34. 2 r ; 


76 


- 


15.6% 


28 


- 


50.9% 


514 


- 


5.9% 


998 


+ 


11.4% 





Lxpendi 


tures 


%In 
or D< 


crease 




1977-78 




1978-79 


'crease 


$ 


11.322 


$ 


21.330 


_ 


88.4% 




12,366 




8.149 


- 


34.1% 




3.783 




12.100 


+ 


219.9% 




11,760 




17,592 


+ 


49.6% 




5.375 




4,217 


- 


21.5% 


S 


44,606 


S 


63.388 


+ 


42.1% 


$ 


53.087 


$ 


83.115 


+ 


56.6% 




47.289 




61,840 


+ 


30.8% 




82,672 




90,393 


+ 


9.3% 


s 


183,048 


s 


235.348 


+ 


28.6% 


s 


135,621 


s 


167,082 


+ 


23.2% 


s 


14,098 


s 


19,174 


+ 


36.0% 


$ 


9.996 


$ 


49,681 


+ 397.0% 




6,492 




25,998 


+ 300.5% 


$ 


16,488 


$ 


75,679 


+ 359.0% 


$ 


11,021 


$ 


20,947 


+ 


90.1% 


S 


30.376 


S 


45,067 


+ 


48.4% 




25.695 




26.900 


+ 


4.7% 




10,324 




5,719 


- 


44.6% 




22.159 




23.767 


+ 


7.3% 




13.184 




1 3,020 


- 


1.2% 


S 


101,738 


$ 


114,473 


+ 


12.5% 


$ 


12,759 


$ 


11.328 




11.2% 




1.633 




4.985 


+ . 


105.3% 




2.760 




2.414 


- 


12.5% 




24,609 




30,558 


+ 


24.2% 




13.125 




6.514 


- 


50.4% 




10,602 




7.031 


- 


33.7% 




7.769 




4.922 


- 


36.6% 


$ 


73,257 


$ 


67,752 


— 


7.5% 


$3,748,334 


S4.568.495 


+ 


21.9% 



62 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL 
(Positions and salaries authorized as of June 30, 1979) 



Positions 
authorized 



SUPREME COURT 

7 Justices 
23 Staff Personnel (Clerk's and Reporter's offices, law clerks, library staff) 
7 Secretarial personnel 

COURT OF APPEALS 

12 Judges 

28 Staff personnel 

14 Secretarial personnel 

SUPERIOR COURT 

66 Judges 

63 Staff personnel 

33 Secretarial personnel 

DISTRICT COURT 

127 Judges 
589 Magistrates 
33 Staff personnel 

4 Secretarial personnel 

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

33 District Attorneys 
222 Staff personnel 
58 Secretarial personnel 

CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

100 Clerks of Superior Court 
,387 Staff personnel 
7 Secretarial personnel 

INDIGENT REPRESENTATION 

5 Public Defenders 
48 Staff personnel 

4 Special counsel at mental hospitals 
4 Secretarial personnel 

JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 

281 Court counselors 
50 Secretarial personnel 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

1 Administrative Officer of the Courts 
1 Assistant Administrative Officer of the Courts 
92 Staff personnel 



Salary ranges 



$47,000 - $48,000* 
$ 6,180 -$32,760 
$12,276 -$12,840 



$44,500 -$45,500* 
$ 6,180 -$26,124 
$1 1,736 - $12,276 



$39,500* 
$12,276 -$20,376 
$ 7,608 -$10,296 



$32,000 -$33,250* 
$ 2,052 -$12,168* 
$ 8,664 -$11,736 
$ 7,608 -$11,232 



$36,750* 
$10,296 -$32,556 
$ 7,608 -$11,232 



$13,000 -$31,000* 
$ 6,960 -$19,404 
$ 7,608 -$11,232 



$36,750* 
1 7,608 - $24,504 
; 14,508- $23,748 
; 7,608 - $ 9,444 



110,296 -$19,404 
i 7,608-$ 9,864 



$42,000* 

$30,000* 

6, 180 -$36,060 



'1977 Session Laws, Second (1978) Session, Ch. 1 1 36. 



63 



COURTS CASELOAD DATA 

• Appellate Division 

• Superior Court Division 

• District Court Division 






PART IV 






COURTS CASELOAD DATA 



This part of the Annual Report has been designed to 
summarize the fiscal year 1978-79 numerically by dis- 
playing pertinent court data on a district-by-district 
and county-by-county basis. The statistics presented in 
this section have been recorded and calculated from re- 
ports submitted to the Administrative Office of the 
Courts by the clerks of superior court across the state. 
For ease in reference, this part is subdivided into an ap- 
pellate division section, a superior court division sec- 
tion, and a district court division section. 

The appellate division receives as much coverage as 
present record-reporting will allow. The expanded Su- 
preme Court section includes detailed accounts of the 
activities of that court that have not been available in 
previous years. The time period covered by the Su- 
preme Court data does not coincide with the fiscal-year 
frame of the rest of the report, but is sufficiently close 
to that for the superior or district courts that the time 
difference is not material. 

The data on the superior court and district court 
divisions parallel each other in terms of organization. 
Total caseloads in each division are subdivided into 
criminal and civil categories. A fairly comprehensive 
analytical summary is then presented which provides 
an overview of court activities by utilizing three basic 
tables: a caseload summary table, a manner of disposi- 
tion table, and an aging table. The caseload summary 



tables provide a picture of caseflow over the year; items 
recorded in this table include number of cases pending 
at the beginning of the year, number of new cases filed, 
number of cases disposed of during the year, and num- 
ber of cases left pending at the close of the year. The 
manner of disposition tables depict a breakdown of all 
cases disposed of. The types of dispositions included in 
these tables depend upon the case category in question. 
The aging tables serve a dual purpose in that ages of 
cases pending on June 30, 1979, as well as ages of all 
cases disposed of during the year, appear in the same 
table for a given case category. Appropriate summary 
statistics, such as average age and median age, accom- 
pany counts or percentages of cases within specified 
age groupings. Graphics interspersed throughout the 
data tables depict the table data on a statewide basis. 
Trend graphs over five or ten year period accompany 
the caseload summary tables, and pie charts and bar 
charts display various summaries for the present fiscal 
year. 

On the whole, the types of data presented in the case- 
load summary section of this Annual Report differ very 
little from data recorded in North Carolina Annual Re- 
ports in previous years. The format, however, has un- 
dergone substantial changes, a few new summary statis- 
tics have been calculated for various tables, and several 
graphs are included to provide visual summaries. 



65 



Part IV, Section 1 



Appellate Division Caseload Data 



SI^^HIm^^H 



THE SUPREME COURT 



The North Carolina Supreme Court is the court of 
last resort in the state and, as such, is responsible for 
reviewing many decisions of the lower courts, including 
the North Carolina Court of Appeals. The granting of 
review in a given case depends upon the nature of the 
case and whether the parties have complied with the re- 
quirements of pertinent statutes and rules of court. Re- 
view as a matter of right is granted by the General Stat- 
utes in criminal cases in which the sentence imposed is 
life imprisonment or death and in any decision of the 
Court of Appeals in which a dissenting vote is cast. 
These two types of appeals comprise the majority of 
the court's caseload. There are other statutes which 
provide for an appeal of right to the Supreme Court 
conditional upon the existence of certain circum- 
stances, and there are various methods by which the 
court's power of discretionary review may be sought. 
The purpose of any review by the Supreme Court is to 
determine whether errors of law have been commited 
by the lower court. Review may be in the form of hear- 
ing oral arguments and reading records and briefs pre- 
pared by the parties, as in statutory appeals of right, or 
in the form of considering petitions for discretionary 
review without oral argument. The court may order the 
filing of new briefs and oral arguments in any matter 
under its consideration. 



All Supreme Court caseload data is recorded by 
term; the court sits in two terms per year, Spring Term 
and Fall Term. Since the Administrative Office of the 
Courts reports data on a fiscal year basis (July 1, 
1978-June 30, 1979 for the 1978-79 fiscal year), Su- 
preme Court data recorded here is for Fall Term 1978 
(September 5, 1978-February 5, 1979) and Spring Term 
1979 (February 6, 1979-September 4, 1979) as a reason- 
able approximation of the time period represented by a 
fiscal year. The data are divided into two categories for 
presentation below, cases and petitions. As the term is 
used here, a "case" is a matter before the court for de- 
termination or decision on one or more issues of law, 
and a "petition" is a request that the court accept a 
particular matter for consideration and decision on one 
or more issues of law. 



Cases 

One hundred thirty-three cases were docketed during 
the Fall Term and 124 during the Spring Term for a to- 
tal of 257 cases for the year. The caseload summary 
that follows summarizes the actions of the court upon 
those cases: 



Cases brought forward from previous terms 
Cases docketed during current term 

Total cases before the court 
Cases withdrawn or dismissed 
Opinions rendered 

Cases carried forward to next term 



1 Term 


Spring Term 


Total 


21 


48* 


69* 


112 


76 


188 


133 


124 


257 


15 


8 


23 


68 


94 


162 


50' 


19* 


69* 



*For the first time in recent history, the court called cases for argument in the month of January. Certain cases which had already been 
docketed to the Spring Term were heard in January, which was still the Fall Term 1978. Three of those cases were decided before the Fall 
Term 1978 ended. 



67 



THE SUPREME COURT 



A detailed description of the cases before the Su- 
preme Court for the Fall and Spring Terms illustrates 



the different types of cases before the Supreme Court 
during the 1978-79 year. 



Type of Case 

Advisari cases* 

Life sentence 

Death sentence 

Dissent in Court of Appeals 

Substantial constitutional question 

Petiton for discretionary review 

of decision of Court of Appeals, 

allowed 
Petition for discretionary review 

prior to determination by Court 

of Appeals, allowed 
Petition for writ of certiorari 
Petition to rehear 
Judicial Standard Commission 

recommendation 
On mandate from U.S. Supreme 

Court 
Other statutory appeals of right 
Total cases 





Fall Term 1978 






Spring 


Term 1979 




Civil 


Criminal 


Total 


Civil 


Criminal 


Total 


7 


14 


21 


21 




27 


48 


— 


31 


31 


— 




32 


32 


— 


3 


3 


— 




6 


6 


16 


6 


22 


4 




5 


9 


2 


7 


9 


5 




2 


7 



25 



34 



12 



7 


7 





7 


2 


1 





1 





— 


— 






133 



124 



' Advisari cases are those cases carried forward to the current term from a previous term. 



The court rendered 162 opinions during the 1978-79 
year, 68 during the Fall Term and 94 during the Spring 
Term. These opinions may affirm, modify, or reverse 



decisions made by lower courts, or combinations of 
these methods may occur. A summary of the 1978-79 
opinions is related below by term: 





Fall 


Spring 






Term 


Term 




Opinion 


1978 


1979 


Total 


Affirmed 


41 


54 


95 


Reversed 


13 


20 


33 


New Trial 


5 


13 


18 


Vacated and remanded 


1 


1 


2 


Affirmed in part and 








remanded 


2 





2 


Order of removal of a judge 


1 





1 


Affirmed in part and reversed 








in part 


4 


3 


7 


Modified and affirmed 


1 


3 


4 


Total opinions 


68 


94 


162 



68 



THE SUPREME COURT 



Petitions 

Two hundred two petitions were docketed during 
Fall Term 1978 and 297 during Spring Term 1979 for a 
total of 499 petitions during the 1978-79 year. Petitions 



may be subdivided by type for each term to afford a 
better picture of the workload. The table that follows 
contains this breakdown: 







Fall Term 1978 




S 


pring Term 197 


9 


Type of Petition 


Civil 


Criminal 


Total 


Civil 


Criminal 


Total 


Discretionary review of decision of 














Court of Appeals 


83 


48 


131 


143 


63 


206 


Allowed 


10 


9 


19 


17 


4 


21 


Discretionary review prior to 














decision by Court of Appeals 


9 





9 


10 





10 


Allowed 


5 





5 


5 





5 


Petition for writ of certiorari 


8 


13 


21 


6 


31 


37 


Allowed 


5 


2 


7 


3 


3 


6 


Habeas corpus 


— 


2 


2 


— 


1 


1 


Allowed 


— 


— 





— 


— 





Supersedeas 


— 


— 


14 


2 





2 


Allowed 


— 


— 














Mandamus or prohibition 


1 





1 


1 


2 


3 


Allowed 











1 





1 


Application for further review 





24 


24 





38 


38 


Allowed 





1 


1 











On mandate from U.S. Supreme 














Court 




















Total petitions docketed 






202 






297 


Total petitions allowed 






32 






33 



The bar chart that follows presents a comparison of 
the 1977-78 year with the 1978-79 year in terms of cases 
and petitions docketed, opinions filed, and petitions al- 
lowed. For each category, there is an increase in the 
1978-79 year over the prior year: for cases docketed 



there is an increase of 8.1%; for opinions filed the in- 
crease is 9.5%; for petitions docketed, the increase is 
46.3%; and the number of petitions allowed rose by 
20.8%. 



69 



SUPREME COURT CASELOAD SUMMARIES— 1977-78 AND 1978-79 



E 
R 


F 

C 

k 
S 
E 

S 



600 



N 500 

U 
M 



M 



CASES DOCKETED 
OPINIONS RENDERED 
PETITIONS DOCKETED 
PETITIONS ALLOWED 



400. 



300. 



200. 



100. 




m 






u 



1977-78 



1978-79 



7(1 



THE COURT OF APPEALS 

For the fiscal year July 1, 1978 through June 30, ance Commissioner, the Industrial Commission, and 

1979 the Court of Appeals reported dispositions in a the Utilities Commission. 

total of 1,114 cases. A total of 671 published opinions Dispositions in a total of 443 cases were reported 

were filed, of which 230 were in criminal cases and 441 without published opinions. Of these, 280 were crimi- 

were in civil cases, including appeals from the Insur- nal cases and 163 were civil cases.** 

** More detailed fiscal year data on Court of Appeals activity was not available at the time of publication. 



71 



THE COURT OF APPEALS 

For the fiscal year July 1, 1978 through June 30, ance Commissioner, the Industrial Commission, and 

1979 the Court of Appeals reported dispositions in a the Utilities Commission. 

total of 1,114 cases. A total of 671 published opinions Dispositions in a total of 443 cases were reported 

were filed, of which 230 were in criminal cases and 441 without published opinions. Of these, 280 were crimi- 

were in civil cases, including appeals from the Insur- nal cases and 163 were civil cases.** 

** More detailed fiscal year data on Court of Appeals activity was not available at the time of publication. 



71 



Part IV, Section 2 



Superior Court Division Caseload Data 



m 



%,.v * I 



"*%.. 



i . . ^ _/- 



THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 



Numbers of cases filed during the 1978-79 fiscal year 
increased in all categories of superior court cases. 
Trend graphs in this section verify increases in criminal 
and civil filings over recent years, and the caseload 
summary tables contain actual data for this fiscal year. 

Pending caseload at the end of the year has contin- 
ued to grow for civil cases in the superior courts, and 
this is the most likely case category to develop a back- 
log of pending cases. The median age of civil superior 
cases disposed during the 1978-79 year was 336.5 days; 
by definition, half of the civil cases were older than this 
when they were disposed. Present reporting systems do 
not provide for descriptions of civil cases, so charts and 
graphs in the civil section of this division do not reflect 
a breakdown of cases into various types. 

The criminal portion of the superior court caseload 
is divided into felonies, original jurisdiction cases in- 
volving major crimes, and misdemeanor appeals, 
misdemeanor cases appealed from the district courts. 
The 1978-79 data reflects an increased number of fil- 
ings over previous years in both categories, but felony 
cases continue to outweigh the appeals in volume, with 
felonies comprising approximately 57% of criminal su- 
perior court filings this year. Although substantially 
more criminal cases (54,587) were disposed this year 



than civil cases (1 1,324), criminal cases, by their nature, 
move through the courts much faster. The median age 
for felony cases disposed this year was 69.3 days, while 
median age for misdemeanor appeals was 61.5 days. 
These figures substantiate the very low number of cases 
reported dismissed for lack of a speedy trial. 

In addition to civil and criminal cases, two other 
types of cases lie within the realm of superior court. 
The clerk of superior court has initial jurisdiction over 
estate and special proceeding cases, although rulings 
made by the clerk may be appealed to a superior court 
judge. Estate cases involve probate of will and adminis- 
tration of estates, while special proceedings fall into 
several categories, including petitions on foreclosures, 
incompetency of persons to manage personal financial 
affairs, and involuntary commitments to mental hospi- 
tals. The coverage of estates and special proceedings in 
this report is abbreviated. Caseload summaries are pro- 
vided, but aging tables hold little value, since these case 
types often require unusually long periods of time be- 
tween filing and disposition. 

Detailed summaries of superior court caseloads, 
subdivided into civil, criminal, and estate and special 
proceeding cases as described above, follow in the form 
of tables and graphs. 



73 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
1969-1979 



T 
H 



u 

s 

A 

N 

D 
S 


F 

C 

i\ 
S 
E 

S 




69 78 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78-79 

THE NUMBER OF FILINGS PER YEAR HAS GRADUALLY INCREASED 
SINCE 1969. AND DISPOSITIONS HAVE STRUGGLED TO MAINTAIN 
THE PACE DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS. THE 1978-79 FILING 
RATE SHOWS AN 1 1 . 3'A INCREASE OVER THE 1977 CALENDAR YEAR 
AND A 5.9X INCREASE OVER THE 1978 CALENDAR YEAR. 



74 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 

1978-79 

FILINGS 



SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 27,799 



MISDEMEANORS — 24,462 



FELONIES — 32,129 




MISDEMEANORS — 23,608 



FELONIES — 30,979 



ESTATES — 32.926 



CIVIL - 12,034 



DISPOSITIONS 




SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 26,717 



ESTATES — 31,378 



CIVIL — 11,324 



The segmentation of these two pie charts is nearly identical. Dispositions as a percent of filings: Civil — 94. 1%; Estates 
— 95.3%; Special Proceedings — 96.1%; Misdemeanors — 96.5%; and Felonies — 96.4%. 



75 



CASELOAD SUMMARIES FOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July I,1978-June30, 1979 



District 1 


Pending 

7/1/78 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


4 
{'. 
25 
102 
11 
37 
10 


District Totals 


224 


District 2 




Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 


107 

8 

33 

9 

27 


District Totals 


184 


District 3 




Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


156 

169 

22 

166 


District Totals 


513 


District 4 




Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


55 

25 

131 

96 


District Totals 


307 


District 5 




New Hanover 
Pender 


225 
55 


District Totals 


280 


District 6 




Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


43 

/') 
52 
30 


District Totals 


204 


District 7 




Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wi lson 


100 
175 
204 


District Totals 


479 


District 8 




Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 


20 
208 
291 


District Totals 


519 


District 9 




Frankl in 
Granvi 1 le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 


86 
47 
38 
117 
57 


District Totals 


345 


District 10 







Total 


ed 


Caseload 


13 


17 


24 


59 


in 


6:! 


52 


l r >4 


13 


24 


56 


93 


26 


36 





% Disposed 


Pending 


osed 


to Caseload 


6/30/79 


6 


35.2 


11 


23 


38.9 


36 


23 


36.5 


40 


56 


36.3 


98 


12 


50.0 


12 


49 


52.6 


44 


14 


38.8 


22 



Wake 



1,273 



222 



55 
16 
37 
3 
25 

136 



96 

l')6 

28 

144 

424 



54 

18 

148 

90 

310 



180 

17 

197 



(4 
OH 

',H 

30 

190 



95 
126 

L18 

339 



9 
119 
151 

279 



4li 
33 
',4 
80 
25 

240 



')')D 



446 



162 
24 
70 
12 
52 

320 



2 '.2 

325 

50 

310 

937 



104 

43 

2 79 
186 

617 



405 
72 

477 



77 
147 
110 

60 

394 



195 

301 
322 

818 



29 
327 

442 

798 



134 
80 
92 

197 
82 

585 



2,263 



183 



71 
8 

33 
2 

13 

127 



73 
109 

21 
125 

S28 



32 

19 

112 

114 

277 



166 
9 

175 



14 
40 
39 
20 

113 



79 
118 

158 

355 



10 

180 
209 

399 



56 
39 
26 
90 
26 

237 



1,264 



41.0 



43.8 
33.3 
47.1 
16.6 
25.0 

39.6 



28.9 
33.5 
42.0 

40.3 

35.0 



29.3 
44.1 
40.1 

61.2 

44.8 



40.9 

12.5 

36.6 



18.1 
27.2 
35.4 
33.3 

28.6 



40.5 
39.2 
49.0 

43.3 



34.4 
55.0 
47.2 

50.0 



41.7 
48.7 
28.2 
45.6 
31.7 

40.5 



55.8 



263 



91 
16 
37 
10 
39 

193 



179 

216 

29 

185 

609 



77 

24 

167 

72 

340 



239 
63 

302 



63 

107 

71 

40 

281 



116 
183 
164 

463 



19 
147 
233 

399 



78 
41 
66 
107 
56 

348 



999 



76 



CASELOAD SUMMARIES FOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1978-June30, 1979 



District 11 


Pending 

7/1/78 


Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


146 

170 
90 


District Totals 


406 


District 12 




Cumberland 
Hoke 


396 
19 


District Totals 


415 


District 13 




Bladen 
Brunswick 
Col umbus 


41 
137 

177 


District Totals 


355 


District 14 




Durham 


884 


District 15A 




Alamance 


124 


District 15B 




Chatham 
Orange 


69 
129 


District Totals 


198 


District 16 




Robeson 
Scotland 


80 

21 


District Totals 


101 


District 17 




Caswell 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 


14 
126 

33 
117 


District Totals 


290 


District 18 




Guilford 
Greensboro 
High Point 


781 
282 


District Totals 


1,063 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 
Rowan 


204 
139 


District Totals 


343 


District 19B 




Montgomery 
Randolph 


29 

137 


District Totals 


166 


District 20 




Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


96 
84 

76 

77 

106 


District Totals 


439 



Filed 

75 

91 
76 

242 



319 
4 

323 



20 
55 
92 

167 



378 



174 



48 
132 

180 



82 
27 

109 



17 
135 

2 7 
114 

29 3 



212 



20 
133 

153 



34 

102 

68 

41 

113 

358 



Total 
Caseload 

221 
261 
166 

648 



715 
23 

738 



61 

192 
269 

522 



1,262 



298 



117 
261 

378 



162 
48 

210 



31 
261 

60 
231 

58 3 



648 

164 


1,429 
446 


812 


1,875 


95 
117 


299 
256 



555 



49 
270 

319 



130 
186 
144 
118 

219 

797 



Disposed 

97 
61 
82 

240 



310 
11 

321 



218 



517 



124 



51 
143 

194 



71 
18 

89 



219 



11 
117 

128 



% Disposed 
to Caseload 



43.8 
23.3 

49.3 



37.0 



43.3 
47.8 

43.4 



24 


39.3 


83 


43.2 


111 


41.2 



41.7 



40.9 



41.6 



43.5 
54.7 

51.3 



43.8 
37.5 

42.3 



15 


48.3 


121 


46.3 


25 


41.6 


89 


38.5 


250 


42.8 



543 

156 


37.9 
34.9 


699 


37.2 


101 
118 


33.7 
46.0 



39.4 



22.4 
43.3 

40.1 



39 


30.0 


54 


29.0 


44 


30.5 


48 


40.6 


65 


29.6 



Pending 

6/30/79 



124 

200 

84 

408 



250 



31.3 



405 
12 

417 



37 

109 
158 

304 



745 



174 



66 
118 

184 



91 
30 

121 



16 

140 

35 

142 

333 



886 
290 

1,176 



198 
138 

336 



38 

153 

191 



91 
132 

100 
70 

154 

547 



77 



CASELOAD SUMMARIES FOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURTS 

July I,1978-June30, 1979 



District 21 



Pending 

7/1/78 



Forsyth 


796 


District 22 




Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredel 1 


18 
156 

19 
119 


District Totals 


312 


District 23 




Al leghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


18 

63 

129 

36 


District Totals 


246 


District 24 




Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


43 
25 
37 

76 
9 


District Totals 


190 


District 25 




Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


175 
115 
174 


District Totals 


464 


District 26 




Mecklenburg 


1,729 


District 27A 




Gaston 


431 


District 27B 




Cleveland 
Lincoln 


83 
36 


District Totals 


119 


District 28 




Buncombe 


368 


District 29 




Henderson 
McDowel 1 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 


156 
48 
16 
55 
52 


District Totals 


327 


District 30 





Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 
STATE TOTALS 



40 
5 

11 
118 
160 

111 
25 

470 

14,564 



Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Disposed 
to Caseload 


Pending 
6/30/79 


604 


1,400 


626 


44.7 


7 74 


21 

149 
30 

151 


39 

305 

49 

270 


21 
126 

29 
136 


53.8 
41.3 
59.1 
50.3 


18 
179 

20 
134 



351 



32 

25 

151 

33 

2 1 1 



39 
42 
39 
80 
29 

229 



148 
I'll) 
276 

564 



1,704 



379 



167 

70 

237 



500 



85 
41 
23 

7 7 
35 

26] 



663 



50 

88 

280 

69 

487 



82 
67 
76 
156 
38 

419 



323 

255 

4 90 

1,028 



3,433 



810 



250 
106 

356 



24 1 
89 
39 

1 32 
87 

98;; 



31 


71 


11 


16 


19 


30 


70 


188 


4 1 


201 


41 


152 


?i 


48 


36 


706 


34 


26,598 



312 



35 

38 

133 

36 

24 2 



38 
25 
37 

87 
14 

201 



124 
117 
222 

463 



1,286 



339 



92 
61 

153 



4 ■: 



91 

n 

14 
9.1 
33 

22 •; 



47.0 



70.0 
43.1 
47.5 
52.1 

49.6 



46.3 
37.3 
48.6 
55.7 
36.8 

47.9 



38.3 
45.8 
49.3 

45.0 



37.4 



41.8 



36.8 
57.5 

42.9 



53.3 



37.7 
34.8 
35.8 
40.9 
37.9 

37.9 



37 


52.1 


8 


50.0 


12 


40.0 


87 


46.2 


84 


41.7 


60 


39.4 


21 


43.7 



309 



11,324 



43.7 



42.5 



391 



15 

50 

147 

33 

245 



44 
42 
39 

69 
24 

218 



199 
138 
228 

965 



2,147 



471 



158 

J 5 

2 03 



4 '10 



150 
58 
25 
78 
54 

365 



34 

8 
18 

101 

117 
92 

27 

397 
15,274 



7S 



T 
H 



u 

s 

A 
N 
D 
S 


F 

C 
A 
S 
E 
S 



25 



20. 



15. 



10. 







CASELOAD TRENDS OF CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1969-1979 



4 * FILINGS 

B ° DISPOSITIONS 

9- END PENDING 



3 



9 — e- 




a o 0' 



'0 



69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78-79 

THIS GRAPH DISPLAYS AN OBVIOUS BACKLOG OF PENDING CASES. 
SINCE 1971, THE NUMBER OF CIVIL CASES PENDING AT THE END 
OF A YEAR HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER THAN THE NUMBER 
OF CASES FILED OR DISPOSED DURING THAT TIME. SINCE 
1973. DISPOSITIONS HAVE LAGGED BEHIND FILINGS. 



79 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURT 

July I, 1978-June30, 1979 



District 1 


Total 
Disposed 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


6 
23 

2 3 

56 

i:* 

49 
14 


District Totals 


183 


District 2 




Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 


71 
8 

33 
2 

13 


District Totals 


127 


District 3 




Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 

Pitt 


73 
109 

21 
125 


District Totals 


328 


District 4 




Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


52 
L9 

112 
L14 


District Totals 


277 


District 5 




New Hanover 
Pender 


11,1. 
9 


District Totals 


175 


District 6 




Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


14 
40 

■;<) 

20 


District Totals 


113 


District 7 




Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 


79 
118 
158 


District Totals 


i',', 


District 8 




Greene 
Lenoir 

Wayne 


10 

V'A) 

209 


District Totals 


S99 


District 9 




Frankl in 
Granvil le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 


26 
26 


District Totals 


;m7 


District 10 





Judge 

1 
9 
6 

17 
3 

12 
3 

51 



42 
3 
9 


3 

57 



21 

35 

8 

44 

108 



13 

5 

34 

32 

84 



Wake 



1,264 



70 
3 

73 



4 

17 
11 

6 

38 



23 
42 
43 

L08 



6 
79 
53 

138 



14 
18 
6 
39 
12 



66 S 



Jury 

1 
3 

1 
i 


8 
1 

r> 



3 

•> 
1 

1 

17 



1 
2 

8 
') 

:■(] 



in 
o 

10 



J 

3 
13 

19 



I) 
) 
8 

11 



62 



Clerk 

n 
2 
6 
5 
6 
4 
4 

2 7 



in 
o 
c > 


3 

18 



13 

16 



13 

42 



6 

6 

26 

13 

51 



1 
5 
7 

1 

14 



? 

5 

16 

24 




25 

14 

39 



5 
2 
9 

1 

25 



Voluntary 

Dismissal* 

2 

7 

4 

16 

3 

6 
3 

41 



4 
5 
1 
2 

20 



11 
21 

7 

2 •: 

62 



3 

3 

22 

9 

37 



46 
3 

49 



7 
6 

10 
5 

28 



24 
26 
51 

101 



2 
33 

3H 

73 



19 
'9 

4 
18 

2 

52 



Other 

2 
2 
6 

17 


19 
3 

49 



in 
1 

in 
l 

4 
26 



25 

28 

5 

41 

99 



9 

3 

22 

51 

85 



*The data in this disposition category is for the six-month period from January 
this type of disposition was not available. 



71 262 

1979— June 30, 1979. Before January 



34 
3 

37 



2 

11 
9 
7 

29 



26 

42 
35 

H)3 



2 
40 

96 

138 



15 
6 

12 
24 
11 

68 



2H4 
1979, data on 



SO 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURT 

July I, 1978-June30, 1979 









Total 


District 11 


Disposed 


Harnett 


97 


Johnston 


61 


Lee 


82 


District Totals 


240 


District 12 




Cumberland 


310 


Hoke 


11 


District Totals 


321 


District 13 




Bladen 


24 


Brunswick 


83 


Col umbus 


111 


District Totals 


218 


District 14 




Durham 


517 


District 15A 




Alamance 


124 


District 15B 




Chatham 


51 


Orange 


143 


District Totals 


194 


District 16 




Robeson 


71 


Scotland 


18 


District Totals 


89 


District 17 




Caswell 


15 


Rockingham 


121 


Stokes 


25 


Surry 


89 


District Totals 


250 


District 18 




Guilford 




Greensboro 


543 


High Point 


156 


District Totals 


699 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 


101 


Rowan 


118 


District Totals 


219 


District 19B 




Montgomery 
Randolph 


11 

117 


District Totals 


128 


District 20 




Anson 


39 


Moore 


54 


Richmond 


44 


Stanly 


4H 


Union 


65 



Judye 

33 
18 
37 



99 
1 

100 



9 
46 
39 

94 



119 



49 



24 
84 



27 

7 

34 



7 
36 

8 
20 

71 



179 
50 

229 



40 
34 

74 



4 
50 

54 



18 
19 
17 
24 
10 



Jur> 
2 

3 




District Totals 



250 



1 

4 
10 

15 



15 



6 

14 

20 



1 

13 

1 

9 

24 



24 

4 

28 



7 
18 

25 



1 
9 

10 




5 
5 

1 
7 

18 



Clerk 

7 
3 

11 

21 



21 
3 

24 



3 

4 
5 

12 



45 



11 




7 

7 

14 



57 
24 

81 



3 
10 

13 




11 

11 



1 

7 

10 
4 



Voluntary 
Dismissal* 

36 

16 
5 

57 



51 


51 



7 

7 

29 

43 



95 



27 



10 
17 

27 



16 
6 

22 





44 

6 

23 

73 



149 
38 

187 



23 

n 

v, 





25 

25 



5 
13 


11 
23 



Other 

19 
21 
29 

69 



1 30 
7 

137 



4 
22 

22, 

54 



24 3 



35 



50 
58 



12 
1 

13 



7 

21 
10 

30 



134 
40 

174 



28 

43 

71 



6 

22 

28 



15 

in 

12 

8 

17 



*The data in this disposition category is for the six-month period from January 
this type of disposition was not available. 



30 52 62 

1979— June 30, 1979. Before January 1, 1979, data on 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES IN THE 
SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, I978-June30, 1979 



District 21 



Total 
Disposed 



Forsyth 


626 


District 22 




Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 


21 
L26 

29 

136 


District Totals 


310 


District 23 




Al leghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


i<> 

38 

133 

36 


District Totals 


242 


District 24 




Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


■;;: 
00 
37 

0/ 

14 


District Totals 


.•ni 


District 25 




Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


L24 

11/ 
222 


District Totals 


463 


District 26 




Mecklenburg 


1,286 


District 27A 




Gaston 


339 


District 27B 




Cleveland 
Lincoln 


92 

hi 


District Totals 


153 


District 28 




Buncombe 


463 


District 29 




Henderson 
Mc Dowel 1 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 


91 

31 
14 

54 
33 


District Totals 


223 


District 30 





Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 
STATE TOTALS 



37 
8 

12 

HI 

84 

CI! 

21 

309 

11,324 



Judye 

244 



9 

57 
11 
31 

108 



5 
18 

34 
9 

66 



21 

4 
21 

14 
2 

82 



43 
29 



lCll 



394 



114 



41 
19 

60 



202 



38 

I 1 ) 

7 

26 

11 

101 



15 

1 
7 
50 
55 
29 
10 

167 
4,193 



Jury 



10 




2 
4 
5 

11 



7 
6 
15 
9 

37 



2 
6 
3 
2 
3 

16 



20 

13 

4 

37 



;<,3 



29 



29 



7 
2 

8 
5 

22 



6 





11 
1 

2 

20 

657 



Clerk 
53 



4 
14 

1 
23 



42 



3 


2 

41! 



2 




04 

1 

07 



9 

14 
27 

Ml 



104 



27 



10 

10 

00 



29 



12 

4 
1 
1 

4 

24 



1 

1 

c 
1 

4 
3 

18 
1,078 



Voluntary 

Dismissal* 

182 



C 

7 

I 

34 

49 



14 



35 



07 





4 

10 

1 



00 
32 

44 

103 



74 



92 



01 
18 

39 



70 




3 

15 

7 



Other 



129 



2 

51 

6 

43 

102 



6 

14 

14 

8 

42 



5 
15 

9 
15 

7 

51 



30 
29 

04 

113 



581 



77 



14 

13 

07 



125 



26 

6 
3 

6 

43 



♦The data in this disposition category is for the six-month period from January 1, 1979— June 30, 1979. Before January 
this type of disposition was not available. 






15 


1 


4 





2 


14 


17 


6 


11 


t". 


20 


< 


3 


12 


72 


84 


3,212 


January 


1. 1979, data on 



s: 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL CASES 

1978-79 



CLERK— 1,078 



VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 2,184 



JURY 657 



OTHER 




JUDGE — 4,193 



The largest section of this pie chart belongs to Judge; 37% of Civil Superior cases were disposed of by a judge this year, 
as opposed to 5.8% by jury, 9.5% by clerk, 19.3% by voluntary dismissal, and 28.4% by some method other than those 
mentioned. 



83 



e£ r- 

A 



I— I ID <— I O ■— I 



c\j co un o co 



W) W> <Ti *zt 



cm un *zt o 



i m (ji N ^ i 



i— i lt> cm o r-- LO 



■HN^OO 


r ■- 


co co co ot 


co 


ro cm 


o 


ID CD CM O 


Ol 


U~) <d" CO O 
.— < r-n CM CM 


r- 


CO LO CM «— 1 

*-* r-H CM CM 


CM 


CO CM 
CM CM 


CO 
CM 


CO LT) CO CD 

CM «— I cm m 


ro 

CM 



■ *a- *t ro -=j- *-< co 



CO O CM CD CO i— « 



at cm un CO ^ 



I CO CM CM 



en ro <r 

CM ro ro 
CM CO CM 



i— i o en o r- 



1X5 CO r-- UO CO «3" r-. 



CO LDCMO^f CM 



LO CO CD CM Ot 

ai cvjcrm -—■ 



«— I CO Ot CM 
CO LT) CO CO 



r- O 

CM CD 



HLONO 

r--.r--.r--o 



<- ^<* 



3* 

r- 

i 

X 

r 

3- 



O CO (M C\J N q- ^ *£> 



O O O un O LO in LO 

«j -y- o r-. ID CM -h t— i 

«d ro «* o in en in in 

rn 1—1 ro ^h cm c\j 



. LT) co cd o <=d- 



cd un o m o 

r-- r-^ r--. cd r-» 

co ot cm uo co 
r-. CM CM CM CM 



CD O CD o in 



in CD CO CO CO 



in cd in lo 

CnniON 

un -— < r-- 10 

CM CM CM CM 



m ^J- CM 

On i— • 



CO CO CO 



O CD CO O i— • 



O LO o o 

r-> CO CM CM 

CO CD CM CO 
•— • CM CO CO 



. CM CT> CO CM 



3 

c 

u 



Li, 



LO CM "=3" un UD un CO 

co lo r-. *d- <-h co <d- 
«d- ro co in *? *$■ cm 



co i — i en u~) at cm 

in CD CM CD i— i o 

noanDOi co 

<— i «dr CM CM co r-- 



i CO ro CM co 



at id co uo 
cm en co at 

"3" CO UO CO 



in O CM CD 

co in cm at 



LD LO 
CM LD 

<3- CO 



id at lo 



fl-O^O 



NHLOLD 

LO CO lo un 
un cm «3" in 



a> o 
Cl a. 
3 -£ 



I CO CO CM CM cm un 



. o at co 



r. 
V 


r 


r 


it 


73 


< 



u 



> 


9 
r 


^w 


s* 


w- 


m 


O 


^^ 




■c 




at 

■z. 


< 


- 
s 



CD UD co at ro vt cm 



ojj — 



or-oo^i-atco co 



. en ro ro r — *d- 



co cm at CM co 



lo m m ■—< co o 



tjror-. Hoi 



«d- *d- at «d- ■— < 



uo co co ^ LO 



o co <3- co 



G3 






cm un un un un un o 

LO CM CO CD CO «=f LD 
CO CO CO co .-H co in 

t— < CM i— t ^J" r— i i— i «— < 



co <d- O O at lo •— i lo 

uDCD«^ratcoato «s- 

r-. i—t co co t-h t— i at un 

cm r--- ro un co cm cm «3~ 



qOLDOO 



i— i *± at ■— • cm at 

at co -^r at co at 

«* o cm cm <d- lo 

CO CO *3- UO ID ID 



o un CD CM CM 



un ud co co at 



cd m cm cd un 

■3- cm co un o 

CD un cm cm un 

co in cm cm cm 



O CO un uo co 

r— . cm co r-. co 

r-~ in co un un 

un in *$■ co «3- 



uo «3- at 

<d- at at 

co ^j- CO 

CO ID ^t 



cd o o un o 

CO CO LT) UD ID 

cd o co un r»- 

■=d" ^J- CM CM CO 



WOCOH l£> 

ro CO CM co r-» 

co ^h co at co 

at co co <3- ud 



at ud at in 

r-» <— • cm co 

>— I CM i-H 



ZJ 3 -F- -^ 



UUUOO Q.CL 'r- 'i— 



o 


c 


<— C 






cu -.- 


~] 


ai -*-> 


i- ^r 


fO 


"O i- 


S- (/> 


CD 


>-, fO 


>i ro 



S- fD E -M 
fD i- ro •<- 

uod. a 



Q. C ifl E 
3 O C fO 

O 'D O CO 



+J -r- +J +J 
S- »— S- S- 

qj ro CD O 

CQIIZ 



LD LO LD LO 



OUDOD <3" 



oo r-s. <-• r 

innrsHi 
CM<^t co ld 



in r-s. r-. r-s co 



CM CO CO 
O CT> «=}• 



CD «— I 

co en 



co *a- •— i *=*• 



lo >— i <st- 
co <— t ro 



cxi lo o c\j 



6* J. 



O O LO 
O LO o 



UDCTi^- Ol 
cn r-s. LD O t 



CT) CD 

r-H CO 
C\J LO 



ro *^- cm 
ro co r- 



Q ^ T 



NfOH 
CM CT. LD 



OU3LO 

ooo 



cn cn «3- cn co 

r--rN in co ro 



ro r— I CNJ 

r-n ro ro 



O CD 

■— ■ CD 



f-. CD ^h 
lo co CO 



<Z s? ^ 



O -3- en 
O «d- «3 



cz> ld -=d- cn in co 



■ynin o 



o o 

r-H O 






OJD 



=3 
O 

u Q 





-I 

< 


o 

Cn 
CO 


lo ld 

■— 1 O 

<=j- cn 

CO r-s 


c 




CO 


CO co 




< 


LO 
O 
r-. 


r-s co 
r- ■* 
lo cn 




■a 


cn 


CO CO 



O LO o o 

O CO O CO 

LD O CO CO 

CO LT) ID id 



^t co en 

UO LO C\J 

co cn co 



LD o o ld o 

c\j co lo r-s. cm 
co co cm cn r-s 
cm co <— « lo r-s 



t-HCOLDN LO 

*3-«sj- cn co lo 

«^Ot\JLD (NJ 



CD O LD LO 



«5t- r-* o 


<* 


r-s CD 


<tCON 


00 


o o 


■si" CXI «— • 


CM 


CO CO 



. CO CM CO 



«sl" <d" LO 

T-s. •— I LO 



^H r-H CM 



LO O O LO 

CO «s3" LO CO 



co co co r-» 



cn ro cm 
lo cn o 

<3-cno 






0) 





a. 
- 


a. 

r. 


r, 


5 


i> 


r. 

V 



u 



CNJ «^- <3" ^H 



■Si 

<v 
en 

C3 



< 
B 

as 



CO i— I CO LT) CNJ CO 



rn rvC^ rocj 



en 
a> 

OX) 



s 
m 






O CM CNJ ^i- 



CNJ CNJ LO 



LD CNJ CD CO ^1- 



<f NfOm 



cnj co un 



.-H CNJ CO 



CI 

u 



< 



•JOCO 
r-s, ro i-H 
cm ro co 



CO CM LO <— t 

cm r-s cn co 



i— i ■— i o ro 



■3- CO CO 
CT> CM LO 
LO «st LO 



o r-s ro 
>—* «3- ro 

«-H CM 



LO O LO O LO 

t-H lo O ro o 

r-s. <3- CTi LD "3" 

LO CM CM CM -sl- 



lo cm r-. lo lo 

lo i— I lo cn ro 

rH N r-l <J <rj- 

r-s. ro «rj- «^- cn 



LO O 


O 


LO 


CM 


LO 


r-s. 


LO 


O O 


cn lo 

CM LO 
«3- <sf 


r-» 

CO 

CO 


CO 

ro 


O cn 
cn ro 

CM LO 


o 

CO 


cn ^h cm 
«s* «d- co 

LO LO CO 


LO CD 


LO 


r-s 


in 


o 


o 


LO 


lo cn 


r-s, lo 

cn .— i 

«=1- LO 


LO 


LO 
LO 
LO 


in 

r-s. 
ro 


CO 

Ln 


O 
CO 
CO 


LO 

o 

LO 


CM i-H 

<* r-s. 
r-s. lo 


■si" CD 

CM CD 


«s* 

CO 


CO 

CD 


LO 
CD 


CM 


r-s, 


ro 


cn co 

O LO 



.— t .— ( ro 





o 






o 






o 


CD 




^-. 


CD 


h- 


co 




H 


cn 


Ol 


h- 








jD 






















E 


4-> 


4-> 




4-> 


H-> 




+J 






+-> 


o c 


CJ 


U 


CD s- 


u 


u 


r— -r- C C 


(J 


U 




u 


u o 






C -r- QJ 






^ > o aj oj 










(U-c v) 


u 


s- 


a> o c 




is. 


C C LO o s- 


S- 


s- 


CD 


!- 


cn lo ■ — 




4-> 


CD C >, 


-t-> 


4-> 


(D rt5 i- C 1- 


+J 


4-) 


Jxi 




"O fO -i- 


LO 


LO 


S- CD fO 


(/) 


LO 


S- S- CD fO n3 


LO 


LO 




LO 


UZ3 






CD-J3 






U- O D_ > 3 






3 






Q 


Q 




D 


CD 




a 


a 




O 



+-> S- .C QJ 



ra =3 r— 
r- t. O 
CO CO CJ 



85 



A 



o ^j- o <-* 



co lo r-x 

UD ID LO 



LO CO 

cm cn 



t\j in cn 
co **■ <^r 



lo co 

CM CM 



t— i r-» lo 



LO LO i— i 
CM LO cn 



O CO O 0~t 



<3- cn i-— 



CO LO 



»3" L-O 

LO CO 



rHCO LO 



CM CM CM 



N^orvJ co 



*3- CM CM 



cn lo 



C e£ "7 



co -*■ 

CT\ CO 



iH[\J .—I 



oinoiD 
oiD-fl-in 



lo <— i 

CM CO 



cn in 

co co 



«— i lo co 
co «^- *3- 



r 

ON 



Z &* 



C* -*" LO 



r- co cn 

lo co r- 



O CM LO 

cr> lo r-. 

co CO r- 

co co co 



cn r- i— i 



OJN CO 
CO ** LO 

CM «— I CM 



CO O O CM 

co cn co co 



O O O CO LO 

r-» <3- co r~- CD 

CTi CO CO CO LO 

LO CM <"0 CO CO 



Cn CM LO 



LO O 
00 o 
CM CM 



CO i— 1 CO 



O LO 

lo r-- 



OO *3" 
O CO LO 



u 



CTi CO 0~> 



lo ^3- cn 



— I --H O 

CM CO CM 

CO CO o 

«tf- CM «=}" 



O «d" Cn t- < CM 



CO CO 
«d- CO 


C\J 


LO CO 

co cn 

LO CM 


LO 

«5t" 


«— • CM 


CO lo 

«* LO 


CTi 

a. 


i-l CO 

o ■— i 


Ol 


~^ 



t— I CM LO 



i-nr-. co 



a 


a 


a, 


^L 


3 




x 


5 


u 





u 



i-H C\J 



CM LD C\J C£> 



cnj ro ur> 



r. 

1) 
■/-. 

u 



tHCOCOO 



lo cn lo 



.^ ON 



D J. 
— x 



<— I CO 



^o «3- cr> *j- co 



^-t c\j 









w x 



-— t C\J 



CM «^r UD 



u 



CO CO LO 



LO «^t O LO LO 
CM r-t CM LO 



i-h CM 



HCM CO 






r- lo 

CM LO 

CO .— i 



m lo o lo 



CM NvD CT, 
O <* O ^j- 
CM CM CM CM 



i— I LO i— t 

lo r-< m 

«3- r-» cn 

co LO co 



LO ■— I CM 

o ^t- ^- 

LO LO LO 

CO CM CM 



5 < 



co cn r-. 
cn co <—< 



O LO CO CM 



i— i lo cn co 
I--, co co co 

CM CO CM CO 



r-- lo co 

ION <± 
LO CO LO 



co cn 

LO CM 

<3- CO 

CO CO 



f- y 



LO O 


LO 


CO CO 


co cn 


r^ 


cn ro 


CO CM 


■— i 


.—i .— i 



CO CO ^-i 

co lo cn 



Sh 



LO LO r-» LO LO lo 



e£ 


r- 


LO 


CO 


CM 


•rt 


on 


en 




A 


CM 


* —l 


CM 


r ~* 


"~~ ' 


T-H 




© 
















rn 


LO 


a) 


( ) 




CM 


CM 




(-* 














t£ 


c 
■c 


CO 




LO 




lo 


CT-. 




«* 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 



lo on co <=r 
cn r-^ ro *d- 



o <d- r*-. <— I CT> 



r-*- co co cn 
to un co co 



o «3- en cn 



NOHHO ^ 
ro CD CO LO O t-H 



10 ro cn 



*3" CM LO O 
cm CD ro IT) 



.— 1 I— ( LO 

. ro vd ro 

I CM CM CM 



r-~ co ro o> CD co 



«^r CO CM ro ro 



nroino i-H 



cm o lo •—• cn 



a. es 



C ^ 



. *=f i—i r— co 
. O cn lo ro 



ro LO LO CO 

^■nr-. co 



<ttnoco 
^h LO en cm 



^r o cn cm i 



r- 

i 

x 






•3- «* en i 

to co lo co i— t 



^ .— I .— I ,— I ,— I CM >— I 



O LO LO LO O LO 



LO LO CO CM -3" 

*3- CO <T> r»- r-. 

•^- CM CM CM CM 



lo r-- lo cm CO r-» 

lO^D INnCM LO 

o o co en o «3- 

LO lo ^J- ro *d" «=f 



r-. <3- r-- ^r 



O LO O LO LO 

LO CM CO ro CD 

Hinco r^ r-» 

CO CM ^H CM CM 



O «3" CTi LO 

O O LO —i 
CO t-h CO CJ> 
CO CO CO CM 



CO CM CO ^t" 



O O rO O LO 

CO Oifv. <t ro 
. — itj-ron co 



LO CO cm r-» 
co "d- en o 

LO r^ CM O 

cm «^r ro ^j- 



cn CD ro lo lo ro 
r-^ cm lo en co lo 



O CD CD O O CM 

CO <3- O CM .—i *3" 

Cn CO r~- O CO CO 

CM CM CM CO .—I CM 



co cn o »3- ro 

«3- CM i— i CO O 

r-. LO CM CD CM 

ro cm ro ^j- cm 



LO ^3- CO CO 



co r- <^f 

CM LD LO 
CM CM CM 



3 


C£ 


O 


c 


U 


u 
3 


i_ 


a 


c 


■a 


u 


s 


01 


C 


a. 


o. 


s 




X 


a 


i> 


r. 


,r: 


s 




M 


c 


'— 




3 


en 

0) 




t/3 


;c 


a 


■rf 


O 


■a 




c 


r^ 


ss 


*»- 


» 


u 


r- 

2r 


•— 


m 


o 


■*** 




~c 


C/3 
0) 


MI 


CI 




< 


■a 

B 



. CM LO LO LO LO 



>— I LO CTi LO CM 
CM CM CM CO r-4 

i— I i— i CO 



O «3" O CM LO 



CO CO LO <3" LO 



ro CO «3- CO CO 



OO^fH LO 



o co lo en cm 



lo cm co lo >— I 



i— i *3- cm en lo t— i 

,_, ,_) H r-H UD 



>3- r-~ CM 
CM i— < CM 

«— « i— I CM 



ud >— i ■— i en 



. LO ^- LO ro LO 



u 



< 



CD O LO LO LO t— * 

CO CD LO CO O CO 

ro lo ^ cm en *3- 

LO CM ro rd" cm ro 



•— I LO «3- LO h*. 













<r 


i— • CM LO ro LO 


CM 






rs n nn cm 








lo ro «3- lo «3- 


<5d- 




-r 








- 








i— l CM CD CD *=J" 






*a 


cn ro cd r-» lo 


«* 




- 






— 


G> 







lo r-- o lo r-. 

^j- «3- lo lo en 

rHcnnn «3- 

CM CM CM CM CM 

LO LO LO CO LO 

r^- t— i <a- cm i—i 

ro lo cm lo lo 

cm «^r CM cm ro 



CO en cd -3- <— • 
.— i r--. CM ro lo 

r-H ^H CO 



O lo r- O CM 

en ro ^j- lo i — i 

en en cm <3- lo 

ro CM CM CM 



co r-- co co ro 

r-- ro o lo lo 

o r-- lo lo r» 

•— i ro CM CM CM 



LO LO CD O CO LO 

lo co lo cn en <^- 

nonmo cn 

CM CM CM »— I r-H 



10 lo *^J- ■— i ro 

^h cn •— i lo cn 

CO co o «=3- CM 

ro CM <* CM r— I 



r-- cm r-» 
ro cm t~i 

«3- CM ^H 



r-^. CO r^. lo 

^t- co en •^3- 

CM CTi rO LO 

LO CM CM CO 



c aj E i— e 

O S- -CZ c O 
CO o u ns ■<- 



C V> f— 

ro TD CD CD 



CD > > CD 



03 ■*-> 

cn cd •■- •<- 

CD CD -X -* S- 

r— x: t— "O +j 

i — cn •«— ro lo 

<t <: 3 >- ■!- 



o cd cn >> o 



< 2: s: 3 : 



CD 3 2 •<- 



<S7 



CO i— I O «=T C\J 



. c\j lo co co oo 



r-. LO LO 






en O N O -H r» i£i 



5 e£ T _; 



co cnj 


— < 


en lo 
eg cnj 


CO 
C\J 


O CO 


CO 


ro en 


r-H 



CO ro lo r». ro 



N N ro o '-' «=f 

P-. Cn 'd - co LO CTi 



NOro>g-NOi 



SOOID^DNCO <— i 
csj O in «t ro h <t LO 



cn en cnj 



3* 
i 
r 



LO CO *t CO i-h '-' 



r-- o o o o 

lo cm ro t-H co 

rn ro cm Oi r^. 
-vt- cnj ro cnj ^r 



NO fOCOOroo 
CO O ro ro lo CO cn 






o o lo o lo lo o o 

r- CO LO Cn cn LO LO f-H 

HUDfOr- 1 CO CTtCNJ LO 

LO i— i «d" lo LO LO LO 



CNJ LO CO 



lo i-h r^ r^. "vj- lo 

co co r- o lo lo 

co >— i cnj co cn «— i 

^■fororo^- «d- 



lo r-. t— i «3- cn t—* r-. 

O CNJ O ^t CO t-H CO 

OHO Cn U3 ON CO 

lo i— < cnj «=f r~- lo «tf 



LO .-H 



3 

o 

u 






X) 


c 


Q. 


O. 


=3 




Cfl 


5 


0) 




.c 


s 




■r. 


r 


Ly 








c 


0) 




y~ 


61 


ca 


.-■ 


U 


-3 




= 


n^ 


M 


.- 


3> 



— r-. 



* r-H 



r-H ^O 



u S- 



-r 



<3- r~- .— < 






f~- LO LO CO LO 



lo lo O ro O LO 



COCsJLOLO^Hi— ICO O 



u 






.— -r co 



LO o f— • 



CNJ i-h CNJ 



LO LO O O LO CO 

en cnj lo lo lo lo 

o <— I LO cnj cnj cnj 

LO CO f-H CNJ CO CO 



r-. CTi P-- LO <3" 

CNJ CO O CNJ LO 

oornotn 

LO LO CNJ CO ^f 



iOLOOCNjOr--0 <d- t— < 

LO <— t CNJ O Cn LO LO t-H LO 

<—(.— <r^.«^Lor-»<— < o o 

t— t CNJ «-H CO <^- LO CO «d" CO 



■ — i cnj cn lo r*- r — o 

lo t-H lo r^ co cnj en 

*3- r- en co lo r-. -—< 

«^- cnj «=J- co lo r-. r-- 





lJ'] 




[-«. 




CNJ 




4 ' 


c 




o 




-t- • 


S- 






(B 


[/) 








Q 



d) U O 3 i- 



o id o c/i c C 

i~ >,x: £ J* o -r- 

<U fD fD >> (J U ro 

JZi — 1- (D (D (D J 

(_> L_J Li3 HI ^T> 2! L/O 



CASELOAD SUMMARIES FOR ESTATE AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1978-June30, 1979 



Lstates 



Special Proceedings 





Pending 




Total 




% Disposed 


Pending 


I'endiiif; 




Total 




% Disposed 


Pending 




7/1/78 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


to Caseload 


6/30/79 


7/1/78 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


to Case 


oad 


6/30/79 


District 1 






























Camden 


63 


43 


106 


64 


60 


3 


42 


11 


13 


24 


16 


66 


6 


8 


Chowan 


132 


99 


231 


80 


34 


6 


151 


74 


41 


115 


31 


26 


9 


84 


Currituck 


124 


71 


195 


81 


41 


5 


114 


53 


100 


153 


72 


47 





81 


Dare 


372 


120 


492 


94 


19 


1 


398 


95 


78 


173 


57 


32 


9 


116 


Gates 


123 


61 


184 


56 


30 


4 


128 


29 


11 


40 


9 


22 


5 


31 


Pasquotank 


176 


181 


357 


164 


45 


9 


193 


65 


95 


160 


102 


63 


7 


58 


Perquimans 


140 


74 


214 


84 


39 


2 


130 


24 


32 


56 


28 


50 





28 


District Totals 


1,130 


649 


1,779 


623 


35 





1,156 


351 


370 


721 


315 


43 


6 


406 


District 2 






























Beaufort 


482 


361 


843 


341 


40 


4 


502 


366 


145 


511 


125 


24 


4 


386 


Hyde 


47 


44 


91 


36 


39 


5 


55 


26 


29 


55 


24 


43 


6 


31 


Martin 


198 


165 


363 


159 


43 


8 


204 


124 


124 


248 


143 


57 


6 


105 


Tyrrell 


26 


25 


51 


19 


37 


2 


32 


18 


12 


30 


18 


60 





12 


Washington 


94 


75 


169 


77 


45 


5 


92 


74 


56 


130 


48 


36 


9 


82 


District Totals 


847 


670 


1,517 


632 


41 


6 


885 


608 


366 


974 


358 


36 


7 


616 


District 3 






























Carteret 


350 


278 


628 


280 


44 


5 


348 


207 


161 


368 


141 


38 


3 


227 


Craven 


341 


324 


665 


304 


45 


7 


361 


208 


239 


447 


241 


53 


9 


206 


Paml ico 


76 


62 


138 


50 


36 


2 


88 


38 


47 


85 


38 


44 


7 


47 


Pitt 


613 


471 


1,084 


444 


40 


9 


64 


171 


443 


614 


391 


63 


6 


22 3 


District Totals 


1,380 


1,135 


2,515 


1,078 


42 


8 


1,437 


624 


890 


1,514 


811 


53 


5 


703 


District 4 






























Duplin 


362 


261 


623 


262 


42 





361 


257 


388 


645 


303 


46 


9 


342 


Jones 


80 


72 


152 


67 


44 





85 


64 


40 


104 


45 


43 


2 


59 


Onslow 


521 


264 


785 


244 


31 





541 


374 


445 


819 


425 


51 


8 


394 


Sampson 


369 


325 


694 


323 


46 


5 


371 


177 


260 


437 


287 


66 


6 


150 


District Totals 


1,332 


922 


2,254 


896 


39 


7 


1,358 


872 


1,133 


2,005 


1,060 


52 


8 


945 


District 5 






























New Hanover 


903 


564 


1,467 


473 


32 


2 


994 


487 


706 


1,193 


720 


60 


3 


473 


Pender 


154 


124 


278 


132 


47 


4 


146 


244 


ion 


353 


104 


29 


4 


249 


District Totals 


1,057 


688 


1,745 


605 


34 


6 


1,140 


731 


815 


1,546 


824 


53 


2 


722 


District 6 






























Bertie 


248 


159 


407 


154 


37 


8 


253 


147 


96 


243 


95 


39 





148 


Halifax 


555 


354 


909 


300 


33 





609 


558 


332 


890 


282 


31 


6 


608 


Hertford 


188 


118 


306 


124 


40 


5 


182 


95 


89 


184 


72 


39 


1 


112 


Northampton 


180 


134 


323 


128 


39 


6 


195 


90 


106 


196 


93 


47 


4 


103 


District Totals 


1,180 


765 


1,945 


706 


36 


2 


1,239 


890 


623 


1,513 


64 2 


35 


8 


971 


District 7 






























Edgecombe 


399 


317 


716 


334 


46 


6 


382 


135 


204 


339 


167 


49 


2 


172 


Nash 


482 


339 


821 


354 


43 


1 


46 7 


279 


213 


492 


208 


42 


2 


284 


Wilson 


686 


393 


1,079 


565 


52 


3 


514 


174 


310 


484 


274 


56 


6 


210 


District Totals 


1,567 


1,049 


2,616 


1,253 


47 


8 


1,363 


588 


727 


1,315 


1,40 


49 


3 


666 


District 8 






























Greene 


116 


114 


230 


117 


50 


8 


113 


67 


72 


139 


59 


42 


4 


80 


Lenoir 


327 


409 


736 


340 


46 


1 


396 


243 


346 


589 


329 


55 


8 


260 


Wayne 


699 


485 


1,184 


460 


38 


8 


724 


302 


692 


994 


70', 


70 


7 


291 


District Totals 


1,142 


1,008 


2,150 


917 


42 


6 


1,233 


612 


1,110 


1,722 


1,091 


63 


3 


6 31 


District 9 






























Franklin 


325 


167 


492 


123 


25 





369 


158 


159 


317 


161 


50 


7 


156 


Granville 


260 


231 


491 


26 3 


51 


5 


238 


86 


290 


376 


274 


72 


8 


102 


Person 


226 


130 


366 


122 


34 


2 


234 


120 


140 


260 


105 


40 


3 


155 


Vance 


285 


267 


552 


249 


4 6 


1 


103 


87 


1 16 


223 


112 


50 


2 


111 


Warren 


283 


172 


455 


212 


46 


5 


243 


264 


102 


366 


240 


65 


5 


126 


District Totals 


1,379 


967 


2,346 


959 


40 


8 


1,387 


715 


827 


1,542 


892 


57 


8 


650 


District 10 































Wake 



2,317 1,358 



3,675 



1,102 



29.9 



2,573 



796 



l,C 



1,028 



54.6 



854 



CASELOAD SUMMARIES FOR ESTATE AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July I,1978-June30, 1979 



Eslates 



Special Proceedings 



District 11 


Pending 

7/1/78 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Disposed 
(o Caseload 


Pending 
6/30/79 


Pending 

7/1/78 


Filed 


Total 

Caseload 


Disposed 


% Disposed 
(o Caseload 


Pending 
6/30/79 


Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


425 
673 
345 


370 
479 

194 


795 

1,152 

539 


320 

4 3? 
169 


40.2 
37.5 
29.4 


475 
720 
380 


353 
161 
181 


186 
441 
1/8 


539 

602 
359 


151 
424 
157 


28.0 
70.4 
43.7 


388 

178 
202 


District Totals 


1,443 


1,043 


2,486 


911 


36.6 


1,575 


699 


805 


1,500 


732 


48.8 


768 


District 12 


























Cumberland 
Hoke 


732 

138 


679 
91 


1,411 
229 


674 
73 


47.7 
31.8 


737 
156 


499 
57 


1,345 

74 


1,844 
131 


1,352 
57 


73.3 
43.5 


492 
74 


District Totals 


870 


770 


1,640 


747 


45.5 


893 


666 


1,419 


1,975 


1,409 


71.3 


566 


District 13 


























Bladen 
Brunswick 
Col umbus 


169 
169 
361 


109 
176 
286 


178 
345 
64 7 


114 

70 

265 


41.0 
20.2 
40.9 


164 
275 
382 


129 

277 
240 


140 
207 
211 


269 
484 
451 


141 

90 

161 


52.4 
18.5 
35.6 


128 
394 
290 


District Totals 


699 


571 


1,270 


44 9 


35.3 


89 1 


646 


558 


1,204 


392 


32.5 


812 


District 14 


























Durham 


1,555 


912 


2,467 


890 


36.0 


1,577 


514 


809 


1,323 


678 


51.2 


645 


District 15A 


























Alamance 


496 


645 


1,141 


564 


49.4 


577 


162 


353 


515 


327 


63.4 


188 


District 15B 


























Chatham 
Orange 


285 
611 


223 
370 


508 
981 


209 
332 


41.1 
33.8 


299 

649 


109 
212 


99 

541 


208: 
753 


108 
487 


51.9 
64.6 


100 

266 


District Totals 


896 


59 i 


1,489 


541 


36.3 


948 


321 


640 


961 


596 


61.9 


366 


District 16 


























Robeson 
Scotland 


619 

2 34 


483 
133 


1,102 
367 


506 
144 


45.9 
39.2 


696 
223 


345 
99 


348 

127 


693 
226 


486 
94 


70.1 
41.5 


207 
132 


District Totals 


853 


616 


1,469 


650 


44.2 


819 


444 


476 


919 


580 


63.1 


339 


District 17 


























Caswel 1 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 


128 
820 

148 
440 


131 
572 
149 
328 


259 

1,392 

297 

768 


122 

686 
118 
309 


47.1 
49.2 
39.7 
40.2 


137 
707 

179 
459 


61 

380 

46 

161 


63 

314 
132 
235 


124 
694 
178 
396 


54 
3 30 
108 
249 


43.5 
47.5 
60.6 
62.8 


70 
364 

70 

147 


District Totals 


1,536 


1,180 


2,716 


1,234 


45.4 


1,482 


649 


744 


1,392 


7 41 


53.2 


651 


District 18 


























Guilford 


2,465 


1,745 


4,210 


1,605 


38.1 


2,605 


705 


1,860 


2,565 


1,875 


73.0 


690 


District 19A 


























Cabarrus 
Rowan 


672 
887 


482 
743 


1,154 
1,630 


505 
756 


43.7 
46.3 


649 
874 


171 
165 


256 

866 


427 
1,021 


240 

802 


56.2 
78.5 


187 
219 


District Totals 


1,559 


1,225 


2,784 


1,261 


45.2 


1,523 


336 


1,112 


1,448 


1,042 


71.9 


406 


District 19B 


























Montgomery 
Randolph 


199 
526 


150 

464 


349 

990 


144 

449 


41.2 
44.6 


906 
548 


108 

181 


74 

299 


182 

480 


86 
291 


47.2 
60.6 


% 
189 


District Totals 


725 


614 


1,339 


586 


43.7 


753 


289 


37 3 


662 


377 


56.9 


285 


District 20 


























Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


414 

964 
48 : 
904 

4/1 


159 
384 
299 
292 

(40 


569 
948 

782 

1,196 

811 


196 
328 
223 
248 
334 


22.1 
34.5 
28.5 
20.7 
41.1 


44 1 
(.20 
559 
948 

477 


116 
1 84 
294 

206; 
139 


62 

260 
158 

906, 
2 30 


180 
4 14 
452 
4 1 6 
369 


77 

308 
124 

210 
234 


42.7 
69.3 
27.4 
50.4 
63.4 


103 

136 
328 
206 

135 



District Totals 2,836 



1,470 4,306 



1,259 



29.2 



3,047 



943 



918 



1,861 



953 



51.2 



008 



90 



CASELOAD SUMMARIES FOR ESTATE AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July I,1978-June30, 1979 



Estates 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredel 1 



Pending 

7/1/78 

1,932 



103 

678 

120 
635 

District Totals 1,536 



Filed 

1,345 



108 
584 
112 
578 

1,382 



Total % Disposed Pending 

Caseload Disposed to Caseload 6/30/79 



3,277 1,376 



211 
1,262 

232 
1,213 



90 
519 
116 
516 



2,918 1,241 



41.9 



42.6 
41.1 
50.0 
42.5 

42.5 



1,901 



121 
743 
116 

69 7 

1,677 



Pending 

7/1/78 

283 



465 



Special Proceedings 



Filed 



859 



Total 
Caseload 



% Disposed Pending 
Disposed to Caseload 6/30/79 



1,054 1,337 



1,079 



1,324 



744 



56.1 



,"58 



62 


90 


152 


78 


51.3 


74 


199 


321 


520 


246 


47.3 


274 


45 


90 


135 


82 


60.7 


53 


159 


358 


51/ 


338 


65.3 


179 



580 



District 23 



Alleghany 


81 


84 


165 


79 


47.8 


Ashe 


178 


150 


328 


156 


47.5 


Wilkes 


268 


24 7 


515 


239 


46.4 


Yadkin 


25? 


212 


464 


240 


51.7 


District Totals 


779 


693 


1,472 


714 


48.5 


District 24 












Avery 


127 


67 


194 


71 


36.5 


Madison 


26? 


108 


370 


101 


27.2 


Mitchell 


293 


97 


390 


58 


14.8 


Watauga 


138 


121 


259 


82 


31.6 


Yancey 


103 


156 


259 


152 


58.6 


District Totals 


923 


549 


1,472 


464 


31.5 


District 25 













Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 



650 

54 7 
861 



337 
350 

574 



2,058 1,261 



987 

897 
1,435 

3,319 



3,420 2,331 5,751 



990 



778 



1,768 



Buncombe 

District 29 

Henderson 
McDowell 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transyl vania 

District Totals 

District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swa i n 

District Totals 1,301 



54 7 
235 
192 
4 76 
269 

1,719 



154 

34 

92 

405 

2 36 

302 

78 



420 
179 
162 

340 
170 

1,271 



121 

3 7 

ii 

295 

134 

135 

65 

820 



967 
414 
354 
816 
439 

2,990 



2 75 

71 

125 

700 
370 
437 
143 

2,121 



394 
349 

428 

1,171 



2,204 



710 



2,361 1,200 3,561 1,372 



4 53 
141 
139 
422 
128 

1,283 



71 
27 
53 

294 
63 

117 
37 

662 



39.9 
38.9 
29.8 

35.2 



38.3 



40.1 



Cleveland 


465 


460 


925 


464 


50.1 


Lincoln 


264 


241 


505 


249 


49.3 


District Totals 


729 


701 


1,430 


713 


49.8 


District 28 













STATE TOTALS 



47,012 32,926 79,938 31,378 



38.5 



46.8 
34.0 
39.2 
51.7 
29.1 

42.9 



25.8 
38.0 
42.4 
42.0 
17.0 
26.7 
25.8 

31.2 
39.2 



172 
276 
224 

758 



123 

269 
332 
177 

107 

1,008 



59 3 

548 

1,007 

2,148 



3,547 



1,058 



461 
256 

717 



2,189 



514 
273 
215 
394 

311 

1,707 



204 
44 
72 

406 

30/ 
320 
1 06 

1,459 



22 


64 


86 


69 


80.2 


1/ 


38 


88 


126 


9? 


73.0 


34 


74 


<44 


518 


359 


69.3 


159 


75 


107 


182 


120 


65.9 


67' 



309 



366 



84 6 



603 



14 6 
66 

212 



530 



703 



37 
21 
15 
144 
144 
1 60 
37 

558 



603 



423 



1,103 



38? 
222 

604 



46 

16 

27 

177 

116 

121 

62 

56'^ 



912 



640 



78,9 



346 



1,135 1,981 



1,193 1,858 3,051 



1,706 

528 
288 

816 
1,318 



1,117 



1,821 



1,064 



408 
234 

64? 



7 3? 



794 1,497 



83 

37 

4? 

321 

260 

28! 

99 

1,123 



74 



4 3 
?1 
21 

180 

109 

91 

50 

5? 1 



70.1 



43.8 



56.3 



62.3 



77.2 
81.2 

78.6 



55.5 



49.4 



51.8 
56.7 
50.0 
57.9 
41.9 
32.3 
50.5 



272 



66 


79 


145 


78 


53.7 


67 


69 


67 


136 


48 


35.2 


88 


70 


8 3 


153 


28 


18.3 


125 


106 


133 


239 


134 


56.0 


105 


55 


61 


116 


58 


50.0 


58 



44 3 



156 


4?5 


581 


472 


81.2 


109 


425 


258 


683 


271 


39.6 


41? 


265 


452 


717 


374 


52.1 


343 



864 



59.6 1,230 



64? 



120 

54 

174 



58,1, 



262 


214 


4 76 


173 


36.3 


50 3 


147 


191 


338 


174 


51.4 


164 


26 


72 


98 


75 


76.5 


23 


173 


206 


3 79 


233 


61.4 


146 


95 


111 


206 


85 


41.2 


121 



757 



4 

16 

21 

135 

151 

190 

49 



!,560 19,114 27,799 46,913 26,717 



46.3 602 
56.9 20,196 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN ESTATES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 

1974-79 



T 
H 

O 

u 
s 

A 
N 
D 

S 


F 

C 

A 
S 
E 

S 



60 



50 _ 



40 . 



30 _ 



20 



ESTATE CASES 



A A FILINGS 

Q ° DISPOSITIONS 

q <, END PENDIN6 



-O 



.-- J> — 



. 0- — — 




74 



75 



76 



77 



78 78-79 



SPECIAL PROCEEDING CASES 



T 

H 

U 
S 
A 
N 
D 
S 


F 

C 

A 
S 
E 
S 



30 



25 _ 



20 _ 



15 _ 



A A FILINGS 

B c DISPOSITIONS 

9 -O END PENDING 




1 1 1 1 1 1 

74 75 76 77 78 78-79 
THE NATURE OF ESTATE CASES PERMITS A LARGE NUMBER OF 
PENDING CASES AT ANY GIVEN TIME. AFTER A SPORADIC START, 
THE SPECIAL PROCEEDING CASELOAD APPEARS MORE STABLE. 



92 



CASELOAD SUMMARIES FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July I,1978-June30, 1979 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



District 1 



Pending Total % Disposed Pending 

7/1/78 Filed Caseload Disposed to Caseload 6/30/79 



12 
25 

4 
26 
33 
24 

9 



Camden 


2 


68 


70 


58 


82.8 


Chowan 


56 


101 


157 


132 


84.0 


Currituck 


20 


30 


50 


46 


92.0 


Dare 


11 


97 


108 


82 


75.9 


Gates 


9 


69 


78 


45 


57.6 


Pasquotank 


31 


178 


209 


185 


88.5 


Perquimans 


21 


53 


74 


65 


87.8 


District Totals 


150 


596 


746 


613 


82.1 


District 2 












Beaufort 


71 


457 


528 


437 


82.7 


Hyde 





60 


60 


13 


21.6 


Martin 


42 


86 


128 


63 


49.2 


Tyrrell 


10 


1 


11 


2 


18.1 


Washington 


17 


62 


79 


58 


73.4 


District Totals 


140 


666 


806 


573 


71.0 


District 3 












Carteret 


151 


123 


274 


155 


56.5 


Craven 


124 


592 


716 


615 


85.8 


Paml ico 


19 


56 


75 


67 


89.3 


Pitt 


254 


671 


925 


694 


75.0 


District Totals 


548 


1,442 


1,990 


1,531 


76.9 


District 4 












Dupl in 


11 


251 


262 


189 


72.1 


Jones 


1 


84 


85 


76 


89.4 


Onslow 


156 


1,037 


1,193 


1,014 


84.9 


Sampson 


13 


245 


258 


189 


73.2 


District Totals 


181 


1,617 


1,798 


1,468 


81.6 


District 5 












New Hanover 


150 


1,478 


1,628 


1,227 


75.3 


Pender 


73 


101 


174 


79 


45.4 


District Totals 


223 


1,579 


1,802 


1,306 


72.4 


District 6 












Bertie 


14 





14 


3 


21.4 


Halifax 


66 


340 


406 


166 


40.8 


Hertford 


37 


54 


91 


65 


71.4 


Northampton 


31 


60 


91 


49 


53.8 


District Totals 


148 


454 


602 


283 


47.0 


District 7 












Edgecombe 


50 


367 


41/ 


351 


84.1 


Nash 


118 


618 


736 


589 


80.0 


Wilson 


91 


376 


467 


234 


50.1 


District Totals 


259 


1,361 


1,620 


1,174 


72.4 


District 8 












Greene 


15 


84 


99 


72 


72.7 


Lenoir 


58 


340 


398 


358 


89.9 


Wayne 


41 


50 3 


544 


398 


73.1 


District Totals 


114 


927 


1,041 


828 


79.5 


District 9 












Frankl in 


46 


149 


195 


86 


44.1 


Granvil le 


72 


102 


174 


124 


71.2 


Person 


36 


69 


105 


55 


52.3 


Vance 


54 


280 


334 


223 


66.7 


Warren 


70 


65 


135 


83 


61.4 


District Totals 


278 


665 


943 


571 


60.5 


District 10 













Wake 



963 2,091 3,054 1,957 



64.0 



133 



91 
47 
65 
9 
21 

233 



119 

101 

8 

231 

459 



73 
9 

179 

69 

330 



401 
95 

496 



11 

240 

26 

42 

319 



66 
147 
233 

446 



27 

40 

146 

213 



109 
50 
50 

111 
52 

372 



1,097 



Pending 

7/1/78 



9 

14 
74 
101 
20 
64 
23 



305 



151 



102 



109 



119 



If./ 



392 



425 



361 



Filed 

14 

147 
2 31 
230 

66 
373 

79 

1,140 



440 



1,174 



473 



629 



1,043 



894 



1,727 



Total 
Caseload 

23 
161 
305 
331 



43/ 
102 

1,445 



% Disposed Pending 
Disposed to Caseload 6/30/79 



18 

146 
235 
197 

64 
359 
79 

1,098 



591 



19,", 



1,476 1,120 



582 



465 



796 



619 



1,435 



1,050 



1,319 



2,C 



854 



1,511 



78.2 
90.6 
77.0 
59.5 
74.4 
82.1 
77.4 

75.9 



67.3 



75. i 



79.8 



77.7 



73.1 



64.7 



72.3 



5 
15 

70 

134 
22 
78 
23 

34/ 



57 


215 


272 


195 


71.6 


// 


16 


46 


62 


43 


69.3 


19 


31 


76 


107 


68 


63.5 


39 


22 


37 


59 


32 


54.2 


27 


25 


66 


91 


60 


65.9 


31 



193 



/() 


110 


180 


102 


56.6 


78 


82 


393 


4/5 


400 


84.2 


75 


26 


50 


76 


55 


72.3 


21 


124 


621 


745 


563 


75.5 


182 



356 



15 


90 


105 


68 


64.7 


37 


7 


25 


32 


27 


84.3 


5 


67 


200 


267 


228 


85.3 


39 


20 


158 


178 


142 


79.7 


36 



11/ 



552 


671 


540 


80.4 


131 


77 


125 


79 


63.2 


46 



177 



42 


111 


153 


90 


58.8 


63 


74 


147 


221 


118 


53.3 


103 


40 


164 


204 


118 


57.8 


86 


37 


54 


91 


44 


48.3 


47 


193 


4 76 


669 


370 


55.3 


299 


98 


302 


400 


334 


83.5 


66 


169 


410 


579 


44/ 


77.2 


132 


125 


331 


456 


269 


58.9 


187 



385 



9 


45 


54 


38 


70.3 


16 


52 


244 


296 


257 


86.8 


39 


23 


275 


298 


254 


85.2 


44 


84 


564 


648 


549 


84.7 


99 


140 


210 


360 


223 


63.7 


127 


87 


131 


218 


146 


66.9 


72 


69 


218 


287 


157 


54.7 


130 


81 


243 


324 


245 


75.6 


79 


48 


92 


140 


83 


59.2 


57 



465 



577 



93 



CASELOAD SUMMARIES FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1978-June30, 1979 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



District 11 



Pending 

7/1/78 



liled 



Total % Disposed Pending 

Caseload Disposed to Caseload 6/30/79 



56 
78 
13 



Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


44 

45 
31 


149 

241 
13 


193 

286 
44 


137 

208 
31 


70.9 
72.7 
70.4 


District Totals 


120 


403 


523 


376 


71.8 


District 12 












Cumberland 
Hoke 


337 
48 


643 
90 


980 
138 


765 

101 


78.0 
73.1 


District Totals 


385 


733 


1,118 


856 


77.4 


District 13 












Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 


3 3 

25 
66 


109 
204 
324 


142 
229 
390 


92 
112 
333 


64.7 
48.9 
85.3 


District Totals 


124 


637 


761 


5 3 7 


70.5 


District 14 












Durham 


2 34 


1,134 


1,368 


1,091 


79.7 


District 15A 












Alamance 


349 


551 


900 


625 


69.4 


District 15B 












Chatham 
Orange 


38 
170 


52 

324 


90 

444 


51 
388 


56.6 
78.5 


District Totals 


208 


376 


584 


439 


75.1 


District 16 












Robeson 
Scotland 


279 
72 


544 
258 


823 

330 


604 
139 


73.3 
42.1 


District Totals 


!51 


802 


1,153 


74 3 


64.4 


District 17 












Caswell 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 


11 

161 
26 
84 


49 
5 34 

69 
305 


60 

696 

95 

384 


24 
540 

77 
281 


40.0 
77.6 
81.0 
72.2 


District Totals 


882 


957 


1,239 


922 


74.4 


District 18 












Guilford 
Greensboro 
High Point 


784 

249 


1,752 
566 


2,536 

815 


1,843 

541 


72.6 
66.3 


District Totals 


1,033 


2,318 


3,351 


2,384 


71.1 


District 19A 












Cabarrus 
Rowan 


11! 

140 


552 

42 7 


663 

66/ 


633 
44 4 


80.3 
79.1 


District Totals 


251 


979 


1,230 


982 


79.8 


District 19B 












Montgomery 
Randolph 


5 b 
290 


l 36 
274 


191 

664 


128 
475 


67.0 
84.2 


District Totals 


S46 


4 04 


746 


603 


79.8 


District 20 













Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Total 



36 
141 
165 
140 

40 



2 1 .•' 

373 

656 

70 

4/4 



25-: 
614 
821 

210 

514 



522 1,790 2,312 



221 
3 3'.! 
626 
184 
331 

1,697 



87.3 
65.1 
76.2 
87.6 
64.3 

73.3 



147 



215 

37 

252 



50 

117 
57 

224 



277 



276 



39 
106 

145 



219 
191 

410 



US 
155 

18 
108 

317 



69 3 

3 74 

967 



130 

118 

248 



6 3 
89 

162 



52 
179 
195 

26 
183 

616 



Pending 

7/1/78 

18 

28 
52 



132 
56 

188 



131 



82 



300 



4 

147 

23 

144 

318 



286 



2 50 
318 



26 
99 

115 

120 

35 

J95 



Filed 

81 

206 
294 

681 



593 
137 

7 30 



377 



399 



321 



6 3 1 



4 3 
577 
110 
674 



559 1,179 



44 3 



112 
410 

422 



154 
246 
303 
2 70 
295 

1,268 



Total 
Caseload 



99 

7 34 
346 



% Disposed Pending 
Disposed to Caseload 6/30/79 



6 79 



725 
193 

918 



166 
208 

454 



550 
132 

688 



608 



4 09 



377 



394 



282 



951 



97 
724 

133 
818 



1,454 1,772 



64 3 



57 
511 
108 
543 

1,219 



1,738 



1,486 



1,279 



180 

660 

840 



180 
346 
4 1.-: 
340 
330 



97] 



112 

472 

584 



137 

264 
313 
310 
263 



70.9 
60.1 

66.8 



75.8 
68.3 

74.2 



74.2 



82.7 



3.9 



69.0 



58.7 
70.5 
81.2 
66.3 

68.7 



85.5 



1,663 1,292 



75.9 



62.2 
71.5 

69.5 



76.1 
77.9 
74.8 
79.4 
79.6 

77.3 



19 

68 

138 

225 



175 
61 

236 



48 


84 


132 


79 


59.8 


53 


19 


76 


95 


73 


76.8 


22 


64 


217 


281 


225 


80.0 


56 



131 



83 



127 



29 


68 


97 


90 


92.7 


7 


23 


110 


133 


106 


79.6 


27 


53 


178 


2 30 


196 


85.2 


34 


184 


481 


665 


463 


69.6 


202 


116 


150 


266 


180 


67.6 


86 



40 

213 

25 

276 

553 



413 


1,003 


1,416 


1,216 


85.8 


300 


146 


176 


322 


270 


83.8 


52 



252 



186 


611 


797 


58.' 


73.0 


716 


100 


582 


482 


389 


80.7 


93 



308 



256 



43 

76 

105 

80 

67 

371 



94 



CASELOAD SUMMARIES FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July I, 1978-June30, 1979 



Felonies 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 

Davidson 

Davie 

Iredell 

District Totals 



District 23 



Pending 

7/1/78 

170 



3 

31 

32 

180 

246 



riled 

1,161 



90 
395 

89 
462 

1,036 



Total 
Caseload 

1,331 



93 

426 
121 
642 

1,282 



% Disposed Pending 
Disposed to Caseload 6/30/79 



1,100 



64 
262 

91 
422 

S39 



82.6 



61.5 
75.2 
65.7 

65.4 



Al leghany 


7 


22 


29 


17 


58.6 


Ashe 


4 


83 


87 


74 


85.0 


Wilkes 


95 


118 


213 


169 


77.4 


Yadkin 


28 


109 


133 


72 


54.1 


District Totals 


134 


328 


462 


328 


70.9 


District 24 












Avery 


70 


66 


136 


75 


55.1 


Madison 


27 


30 


57 


12 


21.0 


Mitchell 


9 


30 


39 


24 


61.5 


Watauga 


55 


113 


168 


131 


77.9 


Yancey 


4 


55 


59 


45 


76.2 


District Totals 


165 


294 


499 


297 


62.5 


District 25 













Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District" 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 



129 
109 

291 

529 



9 36 



257 



293 
246 

999 

1,437 



422 

355 

1,189 

1,966 



1,585 2,521 



1,333 



1,590 



297 
295 

790 

1,382 



1,854 



1,162 



70.3 
83.0 
66.4 

70.2 



73.5 



73.0 



231 



29 
164 

30 
220 

44 3 



12 

13 
49 
61 

134 



61 

45 
15 
37 

14 

172 



125 
60 

399 

594 



667 



429 







Misdemeanors 






Pending 

7/1/78 


Filed 


I ota) 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Disposed 
to Caseload 


Pending 

6/30/79 


141 


1,309 


1,450 


1,161 


80.0 


289 


143 

39 

7 

50 


12 3 

388 

7 5 

363 


266 

42 7 

82 

413 


243 
368 

50 
330 


91.3 
86.1 
60.9 
79.9 


2 3 
59 
32 
83 



239 



94') 



991 



75 



155 



: 30 



144 



346 



394 



101 



979 



1,225 



1,711 2,065 



350 



451 



1,586 



353 



District 28 

Buncombe 



District 29 



166 



876 



1,042 



900 



76.7 



242 



50 



)48 



398 



264 



83.4 



62.6 



72.5 



76.8 



78.2 



66.3 



19/ 



20 


11 


31 


26 


80.6 


6 


15 


80 


95 


78 


82.1 


17 


79 


158 


237 


188 


79.3 


49 


42 


140 


182 


133 


73.0 


49 


56 


389 


549 


424 


77.7 


121 


20 


41 


61 


35 


57.3 


26 


12 


27 


39 


20 


51.2 


19 


9 


23 


32 


17 


53.1 


15 


20 


24 


44 


35 


79.5 


9 


14 


40 


54 


37 


68.5 


17 



64 


209 


2/3 


208 


76.1 


65 


67 


220 


287 


252 


87.8 


35 


219 


450 


665 


429 


64.5 


236 



3 36 



479 



Cleveland 


18 


4 36 


453 


390 


86.0 


63 


13 


152 


165 


137 


83.0 


28 


Lincoln 


22 


214 


2 36 


156 


66.1 


80 


28 


78 


106 


90 


84.9 


16 


istrict Totals 


40 


649 


689 


546 


79.2 


143 


41 


2 30 


271 


227 


83.7 


44 



134 



Henderson 


96 


226 


322 


259 


80.4 


63 


31 


88 


119 


96 


80.6 


2 3 


Mc Dowel 1 


42 


132 


1/4 


116 


66.6 


58 


20 


47 


67 


46 


68.6 


21 


Polk 


29 


72 


101 


56 


55.4 


45 


22 


28 


50 


34 


68.0 


16 


Rutherford 


149 


204 


353 


229 


64.8 


124 


87 


136 


22 3 


148 


66.3 


75 


Transylvania 


106 


57 


163 


126 


77.3 


37 


23 


30 


53 


41 


77.3 


12 


District Totals 


422 


691 


1,113 


786 


70.6 


327 


183 


329 


512 


365 


71.2 


147 


District 30 


























Cherokee 


26 ' 


74 


100 


50 


50.0 


50 


24 


53 


77 


31 


40.2 


46 


Clay 


18 


35 


53 


43 


81.1 


10 


2 


3 


5 


4 


80.0 


1 


Graham 


9 


l(i 


19 


13 


68.4 


6 


10 


29 


39 


28 


71.7 


11 


Haywood 


79 


1 


80 


58 


72.5 


22 


207 


411 


618 


402 


65.0 


216 


Jackson 


118 


40 


158 


90 


56.9 


68, 


38 


75 


113 


72 


63.7 


41 


Macon 


38 


74 


112 


43 


38.3 


69 


17 


39 


56 


22 


39.2 


34 


Swain 


2? 


18 


40 


29 


72.5 


11 


22 


10 


32 


27 


84.3 


5 


District Totals 


310 


252 


562 


326 


58.0 


236 


320 


620 


940 


986 


62.3 


354 


STATE TOTALS 


10,584 


32,129 


42,713 


30,979 


72.5 


11,734 


7,310 


24,462 


31,772 


23,608 


74.3 


8,164 



95 



T 
H 

U 

s 

A 
N 
D 
S 


F 

C 
A 

S 
E 
S 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1969-1979 



70 



60. 



50 . 



40. 



30 



20 . 



10 



/ 







/ 



A A FILINGS 

u DISPOSITIONS 




,$• 






& — V 



-D 



N. 



■'+-—?•' 



69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78-79 

CASES FILED AND DISPOSED SHOW AN INCREASING TREND OVER 
THE 1969-79 TIME PERIOD , PENDING CASES FLUCTUATE SOMEWHAT 
BUT DISPLAY A GENERAL RISING TENDENCY SINCE 1973. IN- 
CREASES OF 1978-79 FIGURES OVER THE 1969 CASELOAD i FIL- 
INGS — 67. 3X, DISPOSITIONS — 63. 2X, END PENDING — 57 . 4X . 



96 



FELONIES VS. MISDEMEANORS IN IHE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1978-79 



T 
H 

U 

s 

A 
N 
D 
S 


F 

C 
A 
S 
E 
S 




FELONIES 



MISDEMEANORS 



FELONIES DOMINATE THE SUPERIOR CRIMINAL COURTS; OF THE 
CRIMINAL CASES HANDLED BY NORTH CAROLINA SUPERIOR COURTS 
THIS YEAR. FELONIES COMPOSED 56 . Q% OF FILINGS. 56 . B'A OF 
DISPOSITIONS. AND 59 . 0X OF PENDING CASELOAD AT THE END 
OF THE YEAR. 



97 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 

SUPERIOR COURT 

July I, 1978-June30, 1979 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 

District 2 

Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 

District Totals 



Plea of 

Total Guilty 

Disposed (Judge) 



06 
1 S2 
46 

;•;,' 
40 

IK'. 

65 
613 



437 

1 i 

!..', 
2 

573 



40 

60 
21 

61 
!4 

111 
34 

351 



314 


38 

(i 
31 

391 



Plea of Speedy* 

Not Guilty Dismissal Trial 
(Jury) by D.A. Dismissal 



3 
6 
3 
3 
1 

15 
4 

35 



5 
46 
20 
17 

9 
53 
26 

176 



31 


76 


2 





10 


L2 


1 


1 


19 


7 



63 



96 



Other 

10 

20 

2 

11 
1 
6 
1 

51 



16 
3 
3 


1 

23 



Plea of Plea of Speedy* 

Guilty Not Guilty Dismissal Trial 

(Jury) by D.A. Dismissal Other 



Total 


Guilt 


Disposed 


(Judg 


18 


15 


146 


64 


235 


108 


197 


103 


6/1 


50 


359 


142 


79 


43 



1,098 



19', 

43 

60 

32 
60 

398 



52', 



26 
39 
19 
30 

21 : 






1 


4 


15 


10 


38 


10 


35 


2 


6 


20 


54 


11 


4 



57 



153 



31 


44 


4 


9 


6 


15 


5 


6 


5 


13 






2 





63 





79 





49 





6 





143 





21 



36 3 






21 





4 





8 





2 





12 



61 



87 



47 



District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 

District Totals 
District 4 



Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 

District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 

Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 

District Totals 



155 


51 


615 


226 


67 


34 


694 


448 



1,531 



1H9 

76 

1,014 

189 

1,468 



1,227 
79 

1,306 



3 

166 

65 

49 

283 



759 



129 

56 
537 
156 

878 



716 

52 
768 



2 
68 

37 
10 

117 



5 


87 


31 


330 


2 


29 


53 


187 



90 



61 



90 
9 

99 



633 



10 


49 


5 


12 


36 


411 


10 


21 



49 3 



393 
7 

400 






1 


5 


92 


7 


16 


2 


30 



14 



1 39 



12 

28 

2 

7 

49 



1 

3 

30 

2 

36 



27 

11 

38 




I 

5 
7 

13 



102 

400 

55 

563 

1,120 



60 

27 
228 
142 

465 



540 

?9 

619 



90 
118 
118 

44 

370 



50 
197 

26 
298 

571 



34 
15 
62 
98 

309 



2 50 

37 

296 



44 
58 
73 

20 

195 



8 


27 


35 


143 


7 


18 


44 


123 



94 



40 



311 



14 


15 


7 


3 


28 


89 


7 


23 


56 


130 


30 


197 


10 


21 



218 



4 


25 


3 


54 


7 


31 


2 


17 






17 





25 





4 





98 



144 






5 





2 





49 


n 


14 



70 



55 

11 

66 






17 





3 





7 





5 



16 



127 



32 



District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 



•;',] 


19] 


589 


SOU 


234 


136 



1,174 



687 



52 


95 


29 


1 99 


28 


63 



109 



357 



13 
1 
7 

21 



314 
447 
269 

1,050 



160 
;m4 
156 

548 



30 


77 


21 


142 


2 3 


52 



74 



271 






69 





50 





38 



157 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 

Wayne 

District Totals 

District 9 

Frankl in 
Granvil le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 

District Totals 



72 


20 


160 


100 


590 


1 so. 



020 



260 



016 


40 


124 


n 


55 


20 


22 i 


109 


83 


38 



12 


37 


37 


195 


78 


174 



127 



406 



2 


37 


8 


35 


13 


22 


24 


75 


1 


44 



6/1 



280 



21 I 



3 

26 
8 

37 



5 
10 


15 


30 



10 
257 
204 

64 9 



22 i 
146 

107 
245 

1 

054 



17 

72 
135 

224 



124 
77 
80 

lio 
42 

433 



2 


17 


21 


114 


27 


73 



50 



204 



8 


72 


9 


45 


10 


60 


12 


98 


7 


33 


46 


308 






2 





50 





19 



71 






19 





15 





7 





25 





1 



67 



District 10 
Wake 



1,957 



QV, 



161 



19 



32 



1,511 



640 



568 



*The data in this disposition category is for the six-month period from January 1, 1979 — June 30, 1979. Before January 1, 
this type of disposition was not available. 



347 

1979, data on 



98 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 

SUPERIOR COURT 

July I,1978-June30, 1979 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 








District 11 


Total 
Disposed 


I'lea of 
Guilty 
(Judge) 


Plea of 

Not Guilty 

(Jury) 


Dismissal 
by D.A. 


Speedy* 

Trial 
Dismissal 


Other 


Total 
Disposed 


Plea of 
Guilty 
(Judge) 


Plea of 
Not Guilty 

(Jury) 


Dii 


missal 
D.A. 


Speedy* 

Trial 
Dismissal 


Other 


Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


137 

208 

31 


68 

121 

16 


10 

14 



45 
60 
14 







14 

13 

1 


80 
166 
208 


11 

92 

125 


16 

10 
5 




21 
37 

63 







24 
27 
15 


District Totals 


376 


205 


24 


119 





28 


454 


236 


31 




121 





66 


District 12 




























Cumberland 
Hoke 


765 
101 


356 
64 


105 

3 


204 
23 


o 




100 
11 


550 
132 


204 

56 


89 

24 




158 

44 






99 
8 


District Totals 


866 


420 


108 


227 





111 


682 


260 


113 




202 





107 


District 13 




























Bladen 

Brunswick 
Columbus 


92 
112 
333 


53 
53 

244 


12 
10 
30 


2(1 
39 
44 








7 

10 
15 


79 

73 

225 


44 
30 

124 


6 
7 

24 




25 

30 
48 







4 

6 

29 



District Totals 



537 



350 



52 



103 



32 



3/7 



198 



37 



103 



39 



District 14 



Durham 




District 


15A 


Alamance 




District 


15B 



Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 
District 16 



Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 



1,091 519 57 489 



625 267 



51 



439 



65 259 



26 



34 



3');-; 



282 



158 34 



'if, 



157 



41 61 



174 



23 



225 



17 



196 



63 



23 



76 



221 


123 


335 


199 


626 


270 


184 


90 


331 


164 


1,697 


836 



12 


78 


13 


113 


12 


329 


4 


89 


27 


143 



752 



10 

15 

1 

7 

41 



137 

269 
3 ! i 
310 
263 
1,292 



61 

123 
1 36 
180 

101 

601 



*The data in this disposition category is for the six-month period from January 1, 1979 — June 30, 1979. Before January 
this type of disposition was not available. 



110 



22 



24 


6 


17 





4 


90 


26 


11 


39 





15 


150 


17 


208 





13 


1 Of, 


38 


12 


37 





19 



34 



Robeson 


604 


402 


76 


98 





28 


463 


223 


32 


68 





140 


Scotland 


139 


106 


5 


14 





15 


180 


119 


2 


13 





46 


District Totals 


74 3 


507 


81 


112 





4 3 


643 


342 


34 


81 





186 


District 17 


























Caswell 


24 


11 


4 


6 





3 


57 


31 


3 


9 





14 


Rockingham 


540 


379 


47 


108 





6 


511 


2/4 


13 


113 





in 


Stokes 


7 7 


61 


6 


6 





4 


108 


51 


7 


12 





38 


Surry 


281 


203 


18 


51 





9 


64 3 


201 


12 


86 





244 


District Totals 


922 


654 


75 


171 





22 


1,219 


557 


35 


220 





407 


District 18 


























Guil ford 


























Greensboro 


1,843 


1,109 


89 


608 





37 


1,216 


515 


64 


44 1 





194 


High Point 


541 


296 


16 


216 





15 


270 


86 


9 


149 





26 


District Totals 


2,384 


1,405 


104 


82 3 





52 


1,486 


601 


73 


592 





220 


District 19A 


























Cabarrus 


633 


338 


24 


156 





15 


582 


267 


2 3 


114 


1 


177 


Rowan 


449 


266 


22 


146 





15 


389 


190 


24 


99 





76 


District Totals 


982 


604 


46 


302 





30 


971 


457 


47 


213 


1 


25 3 


District 19B 


























Montgomery 


128 


79 


5 


40 





4 


112 


59 


7 


31 





15 


Randolph 


475 


235 


16 


179 





4 6 


472 


214 


28 


174 





56 


District Totals 


603 


314 


21 


219 





49 


584 


273 


35 


206 





71 


District 20 



























6 47 
9 89 

15 125 
5 118 

10 81 










2 3 
48; 
37 
7 
71 


45 460 





186 


efore January 


1, 1979, 


data on 



99 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 

SUPERIOR COURT 

July I,1978-June30, 1979 



District 21 
Forsyth 



District 22 



Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 



Buncombe 



District 29 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



Total 

Disposed 

1,100 



Plea of 
GuilCy 
(Judge) 

874 



Plea of Speedy* 

Not Guilty Dismissal Trial 
(Jury) by D.A. Dismissal 



44 



L70 



o 



Other 



12 



Total 

Disposed 

1,161 



Plea of 
Guilty 
ljudge) 

744 



Plea of Speedy* 

Not Guilty Dismissal Trial 
(Jury) by D.A. Dismissal Other 



36 



289 



1,854 



1,162 



939 



(,')<) 



146 



104 



741 



299 



16 



12 



61) 



1,586 



353 



144 



97 



61 



471 



77 



:;ilf) 



429 



181 



14;> 



264 



108 



22 



38 







92 



Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredel 1 


64 
262 

91 
422 


52 
188 

43 
267 




9 

9 

25 


10 

37 

19 

120 








2 
28 
20 

in 


243 
368 

50 
330 


75 

169 
17 

174 


3 

9 
6 

15 


12 3 

71 

5 

49 






2 


42 

119 
22 

90 


District Totals 


839 


550 


43 


186 





60 


99 1 


435 


33 


248 


2 


27 3 


District 23 


























Al leghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


17 
74 
L65 
72 


10 

62 

64 
35 


1 

1 

24 

4 


6 

6 
52 
22 



n 






5 

25 

11 


25 

7:-; 

188 
133 


5 
30 
33 
30 


3 
5 

24 
7 


11 

4 

63 

39 










6 

39 
68 

57 


District Totals 


328 


171 


30 


86 





41 


4; '4 


98 


39 


117 





170 


District 24 


























Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


75 
L2 
24 
131 
45 


23 

7 
3 

47 
18 


4 

4 

13 

6 

n 


38 
1 

5 

74 

25 









10 


3 
5 

2 


35 

2n 
17 
35 

37 


9 

7 

:• 

8 
16 


1 
4 
5 
1 
5 


11 
5 
3 

18 
8 









14 
4 
7 
8 
8 


District Totals 


287 


98 


26 


143 





20 


144 


42 


16 


4 5 





41 


District 25 


























Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


297 
295 
790 


L84 

l'»6 
351 


13 
17 
46 


68 
119 

367 




6 


32 

3 

20 


200 

252 
42') 


65 

110 
167 


18 
21 
29 


7 7 

67 

123 







48 

54 

110 


District Totals 


1,382 


691 


76 


554 


6 


55 


880 


342 


68 


267 





212 


District 26 



























129 



71 



Cleveland 


190 


,'46 


45 


83 





1/ 


137 


62 


23 


30 





32 


Lincoln 


156 


105 


13 


32 





6 


90 


43 


16 


18 





13 


istrict Totals 


546 


360 


58 


115 





23 


227 


95 


39 


48 





45 


i strict 28 



























96 



Henderson 


259 


126 


18 


104 





11 


<)(, 


If. 


8 


37 





35 


Mc Dowel 1 


116 


50 


16 


41 





9 


46 


18 


9 


12 





7 


Polk 


56 


19 


11 


19 





7 


34 


'. 


11 


13 





5 


Rutherford 


229 


117 


40 


64 





8 


148 


47 


l'J 


52 





30 


Transyl vania 


126 


50 


12 


63 





1 


41 


7 


8 


11 





16 


District Totals 


786 


362 


97 


291 





36 


365 


93 


6', 


125 





92 


District 30 


























Cherokee 


50 


34 


o 


16 


11 





31 


21 


1 


8 





1 


Clay 


43 


16 





26 





2 


4 


1 





3 








Graham 


1 < 


9 


1 


2 





1 


26; 


17 


1 


8 





2 


Haywood 


58 


15 


o 


37 





6 


406 


21') 


10 


153 





20 


Jackson 


90 


47 


i 


36 





4 


72 


41 


1 


22 





8 


Macon 


4-; 


:>, 


1 


14 





r < 


26 


11 


1 


6 





4 


Swain 


29 


8 


2' 


18 





1 


27 


6 


3 


15 





4 


District Totals 


326 


151 


7 


149 





19 


586 


315 


17 


215 





39 


STATE TOTALS 


30,979 


16,993 


2,200 


10,468 


23 


1,295 


23,608 


10,969 


1,563 


6,747 


4 


4,325 



*The data in this disposition category is for the six-month period from January I, 1979 June 30, 1979. Before January 
this type of disposition was not available. 



1979, data on 



100 



North Carolina State Library 
Raleigh 

METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL CASES 

1978-79 

FELONIES 



NOT GUILTY PLEA — 2,200 



DISMISSALS 10,491 




OTHER — 1,295 



GUILTY PLEA — 16,993 



MISDEMEANORS 



NOT GUILTY PLEA 1,563 



DISMISSALS 6,751 



OTHER — 4,325 




GUILTY PLEA — 10,969 



A plea of guilty was the most common method of disposition for superior court criminal cases this year, in 54.9% of al 
felony and 46.5% of all misdemeanor cases, the defendants pled guilty. 



101 



OO^'tOOMUDOOiHCOOfl 

o o *3- ■— < o co .-< *i- o r-- «— < o <— < 



inmoyDrvJOon^N co co 
m^O'-ifonoioMr-i co <d- 



cocr.cOLnLOCOOjro uo cnj 

LO CNJ CNJ i— I i— I CO *-< LT) ■— i 



CI 

u 



r-r^.LnLno^'-HNC^roLnc^niD ctiud 
i — iiD^Lnrorv^mcoo^ncMrv ud o 



o^ONfONNOOiNjn -3- «=a- 



<x>co«3-o<^)-ir>r--.Lr> <=j-i— i 



_ <^CsjOOJLT)^-r-(rs.VO'-<VD'^i£)«S- CNJ O 



r-ifO^ls-^iDOOOr-iO CO •— « 



cooiOnoinoo 



LT) C\J 

CO o 



nxuDrsjcnrHOio^anocoouD o «— i 



(XHD N (X^D ^t O CO O O LO Oi 



ro^j-co-— icocmo-? cr-co 



s «cr o c\j co co co i 



"kOCOCM rHr^rH ^f CO 



UD CTi CNJ UD >— I CO O I 



■ mo O CO 



3 




© 


3- 


W 


r- 

■ 


c 


r- 

3^ 






>-, 




a. 
3 




rr 


es 




u 


a* 


jr 


=e 


IZ 



C\JOOr--i-nOCOuOOOOOO< 



UiOCT>M/)i 



■ c\j «^f r-» co m «sj- ■ 



cococxjiDiDiDCNjrvLri'd-incriLniTi nco 

.— I .-H CNJ .— • HM iD O 



coooO'-HOLni-noLoo coo 

rnmmcrnD'*<7>< v i«-<CA co ud 

cooc\jcncocr>«3--— ico o coo 

«— I CNJ i— I t— I .— < 



^comiHcsjmiricOi-nD coin 

co 1 ? inNcnocnrvcO'-i co «— < 

OstintDorost^tr- icnj O «tf- 

<-H .— I r-l H H M rH rH r-l ,— I ,-H 



rvLnmrorococsjNCOO 
ncn r- 1 ^j- ijd ud ooloijd 
<3- f-t 



lt> o O co co o •— < CO 



^OONHHMNH .hcO 



iCONMn^flH Hfs 



*-H .— I <X> <=J- <JD LT> LDt-H 



U 



o 


<•« 


r. 





s 


u 


o 


w 


S 


< 


4/ 


■a 


■o 






S> 


£ 


r- 




s 


X3 


m 


C 


^^~ 


IS 


*c 




m 




c 






ai 


■a 


U- 


e 


1 — * 


a, 


S>M 


r 


c 


■;> 


© 


!S 


ai 


u 


u= 


3 


(*. 




c 


o 




51 




< 


M 




< 





OOOWHHH«JOOOHOH CNJCTl 



Or-)OrOO^NtVD<-ICMOrHOfO LOCNJ 



a J. 



00*3-OCNJCNJO«3-l 



ocoooocoLn^ninococo^ co en 



CO CO O co O CM 



in NOOincMOnnrocM c\j <x> 



a-, -h o> «j o id o - 



C\j<— i co <— i O O O <X> CO < 



C\J O CNJr-.'JDt— lOUOCOCNJ co lt> 
CNJ rO --H i-Hr- 1 H inifl 



ihoj co ro cr> i 



i uo o o r-« en i 



mo st LD co o m co cm o <3- cnj 

rHCO «d-l£>COr-<OC\IC\jCTl rH Cft 



ONvt iDOijDinoocon <3- o 

inin mmHioinoMN ooco 

n<t vtonnHCMnin uo «^f- 

,-H f— i.— It— <i— Ir-ILOi— It— Ii— I <— li— < 



iDincMrro^roN .-no 

UO ^f CO CNJ Cn oo 



stcooirvnorHiM 



O O CNJ CNJ O O CO i 



I CNJ >— I 



C0.-HiX>Cr>r^C0^£>O CNJ co 

cNj^^-cocNji— •'^rO'— • cn ^a- 

CTiOOCO'-HCNj^r-.'JO CD^t 

CO *3" ^-t^HUOr-Hi-H CNJCNJ 



i-ir>. r^CPiLncncnrNrHiH coco 
o~ir-.<^-i — iixsco cnjcnjco co cn 

CNJ .— I 



cNj i—i <a- co 



102 



t\jLnnoooorv 00*3- 

CM «— • «— < O CD O O 



r-. OO ro oo 



HD nn 



CD «3" CO <JD "=3" CX> ■— < Cn <3-«cf 

o^j - ^'— <ldloix>lo r-» in 



CO M (SJ ^ N (\J *d" CO 
cm id ro r-* -^ cxj oo in 



"OO-^cmcooco oo cm 
i o o r-» oo .— » cd cm cm cm 



cn «^f r- cn m m 

r->. in n n CO ud 



OCMOlDMDOrv 



<— i«3-ooc\joo co cn 

N<a-lT)HClO IDr- 1 






ID CO O O ■? IT) ^ LT) C7> <tf- 

ojNOoniD'-in cm in 



n n n n r-. ud 



oocoloncmmit) r-.ro 



ihnoo Lnchm oo in 
cn ^)- r-. co cn co <— < CD 



r-.c\imc\jNrvco^D ihco 



OOc\nDfninnm 



i «d" ro co i»d r-. 



3 







3^ 


U 


r^ 

X 


o 








u 


k. 


0> 

c 

3 


a 


r 


s 




u 


u 


s 


JS 


— 






— *d- o *j- ^j- i — o^3^- «^-oo 



<<— ' 


;t 




B 


c 






3 


r. 


a 


U 


-3 


(fl 


U 


65 


J3 


U 


3 
Q. 



minmconocoiD ctih 



roox^HvotHi^iir) r- cn 



- ° r-; 



CTicO'X>r-'=J-cocriCM cOlo 
coi£irvoj^ic\)cO't uo us 

OCMHH <3- «^- 



•— < CTi U~> CTi 



•— < r-. o o c\j CD 



Cn C\J i— I <— ' HLO 

ro *£> ro •— i Ln «^r 



r- o cn cn ud cn 
cm <3- r-- r- o «— i 

CM LO CO UD 



o«3-CMr--cncnoou3 r- <=±- 



Lncncoc\jc\jLn«^-o oco 



oco<-Hrvcocn^-Ln cn «^f 



CTlrHlDn! 



UD O r-» CO Ol CD 



ud cm en >^j- <x> I*-. 



cd en 

UD CM 



>— i ^- en in. ^ en «=t o 
Lncnco^c^^ r- in 
ro ro in 't cm cm •— i o 



o 


W- 


c 


s 


« 




o 


M 


E 


< 


0) 


"3 


T5 


3 



cO ^J-POCDCD'JDCD^J-'— ' •%!-«=*■ 



M — OO IX) •— ' <— iN^-NO COCD 

Q J, rH CM I-H 



r-s Ln «* i& t— i i— i 



C^HO MCMOUD 



T3 


fl 


C 


^^ 


C8 


•e 




n 




3 






u 


"3 


U. 


3 


— 


a. 


>» 


s. 


B 


H 


O 


ea 


01 


u 


-u 


3 


v>- 


X 


o 


u 




iX 


X 


< 



5X 



<J o 

M 2 



KjONMnH enco 



NCNJOOONi 



i <x> cn o r-~ 



■ ^d o in us <j Oi cxicn 



oo cm r- in or- 

is oirors cn o 

oo in cn o inN 

ro *-+ 



<d- ro \o o co «3- 

o i-i co ro CM CO 

cn in io ud <X) c\j 

ro <^j- cm hco 



ijDr-coooiomoom cn r- 

r-ocMincncooocM mh 

c\jHc\jHinrHO<j cm Ln 

^HHCSJUDHHH t-\ .— t 



H CTi Cn H LTl CO *D is CT\ <0 

cnrocOLn^r^orocxj «=r CO 

^-LncOCDOO-— 'UDCO CO CM 

tt -H r-l PO 1JD OJ r- I .— 1 CM CM 



ix> co r- in vr> cm r--*j- 



CON C^HHH CM CM 

rn o «t r- ai «t LD CO 

co r- cm cn cm *3- cm cn 

•— I •— I OO CM CM *— t 



HiHLOy) ION 

cd co cn ^ cn r- 



rHfooroiD^cMN enen 
iHixi*jocMCONtvt i— ten 

CM «— I CO CM 



CDlD MMOON ID LT) 

LDU3 vt M COCO ^J-CO 

HH(MH <d" OO 



- — cu . — 



103 



CM <o lo <3- CO CM O «— I 
«^- LO .— 1 <— I i— < 



r-- •— i •?■ in co en fv cm i- in t— to 



O >— < O LO CM O ■— < LO 

iDiriH cm i— < at •— i 



i— I CM O CM LO LO 

a^ cm ro lo co «d- 



roc\j OHin^ Old 
COC1 Lnn^DCSJ LO CO 



mcocONLn^M'd-'-iN en cm 



CO LO 

CO lo 



lOOH^-Hlfl roo 
ifltnOCSJ UD CTi CM 



o «-h cri r*. r-. ^ 
Ci lo r-. lo r^ lo 



3 




O 


o> 


U 


r 
■ 


c 


t"- 

9> 






t- 


u 


3 




en 


a 




u 


at 


r. 


jC 


u. 


-t=* 


Dl 




B 


c 




c ™= 


3 


09 


£ 


a> 


-a 


x 


S 


m 






o 


U 


a. 



Q 




c; 








C 




idcooih^o 


pH CO 


c 


CO LO CO LO LO *3" 


LO LO 




— 

ri 


CM i— 1 




s 


t° 


roroiDinNro 


LO LO 


O^COlD^rH 


CO «3" 


s 




"T 


-=j- CO CO CM CM CM 


CO CM 



3 o 

O CL 

(- -!S 

a 



LO «3" LO CTi <^- .— I «^-LO 



■ OOiO CO CM 



innocONH 



CO «3- 

•^3- CM 

r-- lo 



OJCOCONCO^ COOl 

r-- ro lo lo d lo cm «* 

CO CM CO CM CO LO 



OLDWNCfiO^HOJN 



■? N COCM OM 



CO CD 



. CM LO LO r^ t— < f-H 



LOCTiCOCOCncOLOCOOCM 



CM CO 

co to 



ror-LOLOOcoOLO^co COLO 

■tai^NOLnnocoo r-- lo 
CJtLOLOLOcncoco«^-Lor--. o^ 



coc\j«^oc\jr^cNjairvLT) t— • at 

inNOO^foocOLtiH co«^- 

nNCMrslDrOCMNtt^ OO 

HCMCIMHHHHMCM CMCM 



LDro<^)-voior--coLoroco 

COCMCM'=J-LOLOCM"^rCOCO 

CM .—1 ,— t ^n CM CM 



o o 

.-h CO 



CTi CO 

ro .-h 



rHtD rOO Ni£) pH rH 
LOCM^j-CTiO^CTi LOCO 



CM CO CO LO LO CO r^CTt 



O O CO O O LO COCO 



CO CTi CTi LO CTi 0" 1 . 

■* n Ci ro co o 



CO LO r-. O LO CM 

«—l CM <— I CM ro 


LO LO 

t— I CM 


CO CM CO CM 


CO CM 


.-H O CO LO LO LO 


CO «=i- 


LO CO LO *3" 


CO CTi 



CO O CM LO CTi o 



cm cr. 

CO CO 


LO 


LO 
CO 


CO LO 

ro ro 


cm «* 

<3- LO 




LO 

o 


CO LO 
LO LO 


O 

CO 


co «^r 
cn r-- 


CM LO 


LO 


^ 


CO CO 


O CO 


r-~ cm 


CM 


LO LO 


LO 


LO CM 


LO LO 

CM LO 


LO 

LO 
CM 


o 


CO *f 
LO lo 


r-- lo 
CM 


CO CO 
LO LO 


LO 
LO 


CO [*>. 

CTv O 


en 


LO i— t 


LO i— 1 

cr> lo 


CO 


o 

CO 


CO LO 
O LO 

CM *-l 


.-• CO 

CO O 

CM 


LO «* 

r-- lo 

CO <3" 


LO 


O rH 

LO O 
LO r-t 


CM 


LO CM 

LO CO 
CO LO 



u 



HHOOI 



co <t f n <? c^ cm Oion ror^ 

,— I «— I «— I .— I CM rH rH IPN 



CM i— i UilD r- ( CM CMCJi 
i-h <— « CO 



HO"?n lo co 



03 




QJ 


cx 


E 


< 


01 


-a 


TJ 


E 


c« 






0\ 


r5 


r~ 




o 


li 


(*) 


B 


sO 




at 










<u 


T3 


U. 


B 


■ — ' 


0. 


>. 


: Si 


e, 


<u 


o 


M 


4J 


u 


u- 


© 


<•= 


■J) 


© 


V 




< 


BJD 




< 





<sj- CM LO f— « O LO CT> CO 



Q J, 



m Ot •— I LO LO CO LO 



.2 a> 



oh^nmo r». lo 



5 CU cm^-«ocmoolo cors 

Siox 

JZ^. rHOLna>u30 or^ 

>^ <t ir> co n cm n cmo> 



r** co lo co lo lo en i 



OlORl-OinONfOOCNJ CMCM 

co-— "Ln^LncoroNrooi ocn 

tOOOCTirHOMMONLn COLO 



LOCOCMLOr^CTiLOLOCOCO CMCO 

cTicMLOLor-^^rr-^ocTii-H co*tf" 

rs H C\J cj ro h cm o o> csj o i— < 

rHCM (OCMCMCMHCMCMCM CMCM 



(TIN OCMOOHCTiCMN CMLO 

ocMinNinroHMDin r^-LO 

^-1 ^H ^H ^H CO -Stf" 



CO LO 


LO LO CO CI O LO 


cti cn 


^ CO ^1- LO 


CO cn 


CO <T> 


CO .— < r-t "^J- 


^i- LO 


LO CM i— < 


r-. cm 



CO CO 

.-h CO 
CM CM 



CM<aTvCOCMO 



LO CO CO 



CHLOOLOOLO COCO 

coocti«^-loco crtco 

ocm«^-lococo ooo 

^H ^H r-l «d" «— < 



CMroLor-LOCM «— i at 



LO LO 

CM t— 1 


CM LO O «— 1 O O 
<— < i— I CM r-* <d" «— 1 


rH O 

cr> ^h 


cr> r*. 


LO CTi CO CO CO CO 
LO •— i r^ LO t— i ro 


1^-. LO 

^r cm 



rH CM O !"*». CM <— * 



Ol CO i—l CM Cn CO 

CM r*- CTi CO LO o 

LONr-ilD CO O 

i-H CO r-t r-< «— I 



104 



IT. cn cn LO «^r «=3" <=f 

■& 

g9 f) ro CO CO H LO LO 

A 



LO CO 



CM LO 

r-- co 



oinrHco co cm 
CMir> inn *j- en 



Cn LO *d" LO Cn CM 
Cn CO *d" CO LO 



. LO CX> O O CO CX> CO LO CM 

inoiHncMcos o «3- 



03 



— 30 



<3- r^ <3- cm lo lo r-- co 



<sf CO 


LO LO 


OU30DN 


r-- CO 


lo <— i cn ro 


CO CM 


ld lo 


cm cn 


CM LO C\J LO 


CM ^t 


00 cm r-- ro 


CTI LO 



r-roOLOCTit-HrOLO «^-cm 

iDNLnr-iiXlijc^O ro CM 



.2 S 



Cfl 



_ 



S3 

Q 5 

— "3- CO r-l CM tD N LOCM 

O— N O COCO CMO CMCM 

• - N rHCM .— I ,— 1 ,— I ,— I 

o 

a. ^ 

™ S <t cm c^ co m cti en <^- 

^ t cm cn co ro r-» cm cx» cm 

t» — ' ^ romcMinn ■^j-m 

rj — cocricn«^-coco^tcr. 

^ 6^ 1 cvjno>«tN<3- to 1— 1 

O O CM >h «d" VO <h ^- CM^3" 
x 
DJD 

"^ « -. O O LO O O O LDN 

"Sjf co *d- en co lo <=t- «=j-co 

■■ ***" O^ O LD^ O^O Cn LO 

C COfOCOLDinN Cn <d" 

-5 ZJ . 

^ 5f co CO •— iLD -d- <- 1 cn O 

^< r-t^C0 1£irOH r-H^H 



CM CTi cm ro ro LO 



ro lo 


<-• CO 


LO O CO LO 


ro cm 


ONCTiCO 


cn 


CM CM 


CM CM 
CM 1—1 


ro O lo 

CM i—l <—i 


CM CO 


r^ 1— 1 cm r-. 

rHHO-1 


CO CO 


cn r*~~ 


CO CO 


^-O co ro 


r^ O 


LO Cn LO CM 


CM 1— I 


P-S LO 

ro cm 




CM <=t 


en lo cn 
CM CM ro CM 


"3" LO 

ro cm 


CM LO i—i CM 

■— 1 cm ro .— 1 


LO CM 
t— 4 CM 



<Cf CM 

.— < ro 



tOlOlD LO CO 



ro cm ro r~- 
ro cm lo ro 



i-h CO 

en en 
O ro 



LO CM 
CM CO 
LO CM 



CO CO 
<3" CM 


10 


<3- 

LO 


LO CM 


LO LO 





LO 


CM LO 


LO «3- 
LO LO 


LO 


LO 


i-h cn 

LO LO 


LO O 


<5tf- 


<T> 


r^ 


lo ro 

en en 


co 

Cn 


CO 

CO 


CO LO 

en ro 


i—i 
lo en 


CO 


LO 

O 


cn lo 
ro cn 



CD CO CM --I ■— 1 LO 



CO rH 

ro ^3- 


co 
ro 


LO 
CM 


ro ro 


LO ^H 


CO 


LO 


O LO 


-^t ro 

^H CO 


cn 


<x> 


«d" CO 

cn 


LO LO 


,-H 


LO 


LO CM 


ro en 

t— 1 CM 
CM ■— 1 


r-» lo 

CO ro 


CO i-H 

O ro 
CM .— 1 


^j- ro 

O LO 

LO "3- 


cn 


CD 

CO 


ro ro 

r-» lo 



CDLO<d-OLOCMCMCM COO 



> r-- <3" LO <— < CM LO H CM 



^«3-OHOCO<JO r-H^- 



h n h m w in cm o locm 



LOLOLor-»rocococn lo .— h 

roLOcnLOC0r-~cnr-. hid 

lo CTi ro co n ro <t r-i loo 



^3-t-— oi— ir-. CO ■"-' co 

CMLn^-HNOCO^ 

LO LO r-t CM LO 



. , 


M 


L. 


u 


O 


E*N 


c 





83 




a> 


11 


E 


< 


<u 


-a 


■a 


c 


<j) 




• "• 


0> 


" 


f- 




3 


-0 


m 


c 


^ 


M 







3i 










1> 


■a 


U. 


B 





a, 


>> 


y; 


c 


u 





eg 


Q> 


O 


U, 





<<- 


s 


O 







31 




< 


on 




< 





OOOOCMCO CMCO 



1 CO LO ^f LO O 



lo cm en 00 <r <z> 



rHrHCnCO^rHiHlf) LOLO 



— LO O LO CM O LO 



. LO LO LO CM CM 



f-. LO LO 1 



* *& CM CO ro 



CD CM CD LO CD CO 



OOHO i-* o 



CD CD CD en o cn 



i-H CM 
LO LO 

LO 


ro cm 
«3- r- 


ro lo 

-3" LO 


<=r 00 


ro 


«d- r- 


cn cd 
cm r~- 
ro .-H 


co cn 
en cn 


O ro 

LO 1— I 



co cn cm co o r-. 

CM i-H CO t— t CM 



■ LO LO LO CO 

CO CO NLO 
i LO CM O CO 



lo CO ro ^j- ■ 



CO CM LO r-H I 



r-. co 

LO «3- 



CM i-H CM 



(Ji N ID N LO ^ - 



cn cm t— < lo o co 
1— ' CD cn 00 i-iQO 
CM CM 1—1 -=d- CM 



1 CM CO LO 



CD •<- CD -r- CD • 



<— cn 
■ — c 
CD 



105 



en co i — in cm co 



LO "3" LO CO Lf) N 
rHCMCM i— I t— « 



n CTiin N CO C\J 

oj csjco oin 



LoenroLO.— <enco<rr-tcn lo o 
coc\j<X)'H>-HcsjfOLncjrH nn 



i_ u 







•C 


OOIDOJO 


LO CTi 






r*) 








t£ 




OCO 'd'O 


— i CO 












~7i 










-*. 










sq 










fi 




O 










X 


CM --H LO CM 


«3- CO 


B 


f^ 














ro LO «tf- cn 


ro lo 


— 






.— 1 .— « 


«— ' 



lo CO CD -— i cn ro 

en o co cm co «— < 



<st CO CM ro Ol N 

en ro yD i—i in cm 



LO Lf) Cn O 

CO «3- CO CO 



cn cm in o 
o LD en ro 



r- lo 
lO ro 



lo ro 



Oi 't N CTi CO I s - o O tD Oi .-h .— i 
<T n CO ID ro CTi o *cr In CJi 



iNOCO^DOr-iniN COLO 



lo ro 

LO LO 



in lo 
lo r-» 



r-N O CO LO LO CM 



HHN LO I 



3 

o ^ 

S 2 



o. 

3 




:/i 


M 




^ 


<y 


X 


j= 


J. 


**> 


W. 




B 


B 




*■" 


3 


m 


a 


0) 


■o 


T, 


il 


St 


r. 




O 


u 


D. 





u 

< 


73 


■a 



nr^ocsj 
ro cm ro c\j 


t-H LO 

ro cm 


^3- ro cm «d- 
ro ^j- ro cm 


ro lo 
ro ro 


O LO CO LO 


ro ro 


in en en lo 


.— I LO 


ro o ro CO 

CM ^j- CM C\J 


ro co 
cm ro 


lo cd o en 
«d- co lo «3- 


CO CO 
*d" ro 



CM CO CD LO i—l i—l 



O ro ro en ro lo 

LO O LO CD IT)N 

cm en cm ^ cm •— < 

CM «— I CM ro CM CM 



OO LO •— I O ^t" LO 

^j- r-i *j- rN co CO 
co CM lo cm ro «3" 



lo o ■— t i— i en ro 
co in en lo lo lo 



lo «d- co cm <=r lo 



fNrocMOcnoLOLOi— «lo 



«± o 

CM •— I 



CM CO CO CD O <— ' 



en lo cn en «— * in 



ro cm en en cm <— « 

ro co -^r co co in 
lo lo -=j- ro cn en 



en cm en ^j- 

LO LO l-H CM 


CD «- • 
ro ro 


LO LO IN LO 


INLO 


O CM CD CM 

«d" <3"LO LO 


CM ro 

ro ro 



LO LO cn CM •— I CM 

co rN o ro in r- 
in r-- en <— • lo co 



co rM lo cm ro «3- 

CM t-H IN [N O CO 

<— « <-h <d" ^3- LO LO 



•— •cnLOLO«=3-cOLOOcno i-h «a- 

IN LO 

LO <=t 



cooroLorocMLOCOCMLD nm 



iNroojLorOLOLO'd-'— i en oo 



f— ir^LOcnLOro«cj-CDt— iro incm 
CMroroLOCM'— <co<— iroLO enen 
cm-— irocMLorot— * ro ro cm locm 



en lo 

o ro 



73 


%j 


a* 


tt 


E 


< 


o 


"O 


■a 

r. 


ft 




3^ 


~ 


r- 




s 


-a 


m 


C 


■ . 


OS 


•c 




sr 




c 






01 


"3 


U- 


C 




BU 


*►, 


r 


tr 


n 


c 


■71 


cu 


U 


Urn 





I*. 




O 


U 




it 




< 



.3- n. n. ^j- 



o ^ co in co •— i 



DX 



« — . 



O o 



IN LO LO O 


LO LO 


o 


O LO 


o 


o 


CM 


LO 


LO LO CO 


LO i-H 


co ro lo t— < 
in cn cn lo 

i— 1 CM 


LO LO 

en lo 


If) 


CO CO 

LO LO 


IN 

LO 


LO 

LO 


Lf) 

LO 


<* 


O «— 1 rH 

cn lo lo 

CM 


cn cm 

«rj- LO 


t cm inro 


ro lo 


00 


CO i— 1 


«3 


o 


LO 


LO 


i— i P-. CO 


LO CD 


lo co *d- «d- 
lo cn *^- ro 

«-H i—l CM CM 


f-H LO 

CO O 

«— > CM 


C\J 


in ro 

O LO 

CM CM 


CO 

o 

CO 


CM 


IN 

o 

CM 


IN- 
LO 


IN .—1 IN 

ro cm rN 


LO ro 
ro lo 

•—I CM 


ro O ^ CM 
en o in lo 

LO CM CM 


IN CM 

LO LO 

en cm 


o 


LO CO 
CM f* 


CO 


CO 


CO 

o 

ro 


ro 

LO 


CO cn co 

LO CO CO 


CM LO 
LO LO 
f-H C\J 



CMrNC\jco«3-rocnroLoro c\j«^- 

t— i ro ro cm ro lo '—im^t *d- in 

^-t ^h ro <-» 



looo<— tcocMCOLOLoro or 



CM LO CM CM I 



i LO <— ' LO ^J- <rj- O LO 



rO H(\|rH ^l(\J iHrH .-Hi— ! 



CMCocnLOLOLOLOCDrorN loh 

ro^iNiNcnocMcocoLO •— in 

.-h <— t ^h ^h lo ro 



r-. en 
ro co 

c\i CM 



cu ■-- 01 ••- 



106 



A 



o 


ON 


U 


i 


L. 

o 


r~ 

3^ 






t- 


u 


o 

Q. 
3 


1) 


:r, 


A 




■~J 


a 


r 


-C 


-u 


■(-> 


51 




e 


c 




* — 


a 


in 


Q 


o 


■a 



." a* 

T3 CI 



S o 

O CL 

H .2 



or--*3-omoc-oo 

orOLf)roro«^coO 



loloocm*3-olocm 



mo")Locou30«3-CM roLO 
uDO"i«^rroi^o<x>o^'3- r-. lo 



> o «v»- to o un i 



«=j-mouDCMOcom OW 



Lnc\jLnin<jiLnLn(ji cm ^j- 



rococriCOO^^CTiro 



^nc\JO)HO(MO CXi <-h 

vO^vO^DOiLncMro m cr> 
cm cm m ^r m co oi 



CMO<3-cnmr^cMt— i at cm 

HomnroH-jn o CT> 

*3- ««■ ,-h .-h ,— « 

OOOiHinoJMX) COCO 

0«t'*'*'-<(HIJDM CM LO 

C\J<— I.— 1«— I.-H.— ic\] <— • «— 1 

ooajHNtjinn r-t ■*$ 

ootOLnaiLnMoo oi o 

OlOrHOJNCOOn CM CTi 

cnjco<— nooionro td- en 

lo ro^j--^j-ro«=j-c\j «3- cm 

o^ocONCOcrisDLn or- 

moDHomororo m <h- 

(Nj«^-rOi— irocsj^j- cm m 

NOlDOM^I^rHN CM Lf) 

^■co-HCnaMnNN o m 

OlDHOC^COHCO OCTt 

oc\i<*incOLnoco en lo 

CnOLO<d-CMCrif--.C7) CO LO 

mCO.— If— I r-H c— I i— (1— I »— tt— t 



iNLn^-cOLOcOMro co «3r 

i— i cm r- r^ ud co r- n cm cm 

i— i i—i »— i m <h- 



nnr-.o^ocrico or. r- m 
i— i«=tUDLncooroLncDog co lo 



I Ui CTi N LT) LO 



ONMOOU3Ln^NN 



LO LO lO O CJ1 «3r <3r l 



. O "=3" UD t— I < 



' O C\J ^ UD 



cniDLDOcoooocors wo 



nNOLnNNCSJOLTlCO «3r CD 
r-r-.LOCM<— imcMOcno lon 

MNHHHHHCM l-H •— ll- 1 



ocji-<roooroc\i ^d-r- 



o <3- O O t— < t— i cm m m co 



^t LO ^ UO «3" CO ( 






eg 


L. 


U 





-— 


c 





« 


i( 


a> 


ox 


E 


< 


o 


T3 


•a 


E 


1/5 






s> 


7 


r~ 




= 


-o 


", 


C 

71 


* 




n 




B 






<u 


-a 


— 


B 


— ' 


Cl, 


>5 


yi 


c 


Q 


O 


eg 


3 


U 


Uh 





'■— 


y 


r> 


V 




M 




< 


sx 




< 





2 J. 



i— i co lo ro lo i 



i o lo cm m 



c\jroLnr--«3-«3-co<x> 



O LDMcriLncotTiNco ai n 

sO CM •— IO101H l£> LO 0<—i 



.2 a* HNcOLnOLnnrj m lo 
■o 01 

4* *£ LOCnC0<-trH, 



ocrir— < oj *-< m *r *t moo 



O O MX) ■a- ■* LO CO 



t— I f-H CO CM 



ooooocxj«=j-«— I *fr CO 



m in <3- "t o o lo ld tji o 

LMI^OlDCOlDCOlM Lf) CM 

<tC0"d''-HLD<^Lf)Lf) LO LO 

<3- cm 



I LD CO Lf) CNJ If) C\J COO) 



^CTlrHfNjfOiHLnOLOCO 



NOLOLOrtLOLDOrHLfl "dr LO 



ld r^. o csj « 



0«t^^MOLDMHC\J COm 



cMLoooomcMr-Lor-. lolo 

f-HCDCOCMCTiLDCOCOCOLO Lf) CNJ 

C\JOC\JLD<M^C\JLDC\JCO LOLO 

rHCM<t iHHHH «-H ,— i i—t t-H 

in ro O) lo Lf) >- icomcTir- cm m 

r-tCMCJiCOrOpNCOCTiLOO <*- LO 

C\INfvfOLf)CJ)^tLOO)0 r- t-H 

CMCM^rCMCMt-ii-H t-HCM CMCM 



H 5 



CTirOttO^OCMOfO rnp-. 
CMCMLOLOmmCMOO "d - CT> 



l/l r— V) r— 



r— +-> 

i — U 



I— JS i — 



107 



3 

O On 

3 g 






sO . . 

S^ 1 ^ CNJCTimtDINJU) C\JU) CO CM 

A 

vO cruDnrord-ro Lnm ro o 

rr> . . 

&*" *i LDIJiOCOLniD ^CM CNJ LO 

_ 30 CM OJ OJ .— < OJ -— i CNJi-h 

SB 

Q s 

■ — . 00 

_ ~* COOODr- i CO CO LO CO IT) CO 

a. 
.2 ° 

5 ^^1 nCMLDLDlDO'i OJC\J LO LO 

"'eST 

*- — <j3c\jro<3-r-.cri«sj-*a- coo 

W \D cMMMromn roro oj co 

u 
rt 

O ® nHMnwo^ cooi cm ld 

w rococo-^-.— ».— tojoj cm ro 

DC 

< 5 

.2 a* onchHNU) wo r-.cn 

-o =x • • 

4»-«j; rnncoocno CON rx lo 

^ cncnrx.rx.<— <t-HOcn oco 

So* rH CO •— * co lo o «-h O r— t CO 

4, D£ • • 

«- < yDcnocONM nco cm O 

^ C\Jh-c\J«t«t , =d- (^in lo «— ' 



Q 



r-COLOCNJOCTi CM Cn 

cn o cn lo cn cm coco 
cm cm cm cm rx. <^- moo 



xj- LD 
LO CO 
CO LO 



O CO 
CO CD 



CO CM 

cn «=r 



LO CSJ 

CO Ol 



LT) LO 
CO P*^ 



oj co 
LO LO 

i— i m 



co en cn cm i-h lo 

CM t— I OJ ■— I OJ 



LO LD OJ LO CD xj- 

rnronin cm x± 



en lo ■— * lo lo oj 

LO LO LO LD LO LO 



lo <^r r- lo 



CO CO 
LD LD 



O LO 
rH cn 



■ cn r-« cn <3- ld lo lo 



CTiLnNCVJM^ONCOin 



LO O 



OJ OJ 

r-- en 



OJ o 

r- lo 
m oj 



oj ld lo cn c> lo i 



oj o en i— I O LD > 



. CO «3" LD O LO 

cn **■ 



i o rn^ no 



cn ld 

■3- LD 


LD OJ 
LD LO 


■5J" o 

LO LO 


LO LD 


i-H CO 


oj r-x 


O LO 
LD «3" 


OJ LD 

«3" LO 


«3- CO 

LO LO 


CO xj- 


«d" OJ 


lo cn 


!--. LD 

LD LD 


rx. o 

LD CO 


lo r-- 


O r- 

cn ro 

m .— i 


LD O 

lo cn 


lo r-x. 
«d- oj 

LO OJ 



<3" CO 
ro O 



LD ro 
co lo 

CO LO 



LO OJ 

ro cn 



O *fr 

CD LD 
CO OJ 



o<3-ocn.— <LDCocnocn cn co 



OLOCDLOr-.LOOJLOLOO OOJ 



cm onco n >- inai^h- 
t— < oj oj oj oj rx. lo «— i cm ■— i 

IDMflON^M^^N 

HHrHCO>HrH(MMC\JH 



CnLOLDLDLD'^-CnCOLD'— I LOLO 
ID CTi rH «J in M M <d" CM <vt COLD 

oj r-n oj i— i i-* hx.ro 



ro CD CD O ro O 



lo t-H i— i ro CO ■ 



u 



o 


S*. 


e 


e 


si 


u 


(U 


w. 


E 


< 


o 


■o 


13 


c 

OS 




3^ 


7 


r- 




=• 


-a 


r»l 




O 




M 










a 


-a 


u« 




■ — ' 


0. 


•T. 


,• 


■z. 


u 


© 


a 


a» 


U 


•_u 


e 


s*. 


j- 


C 


u 




51 


Eft 


< 


;t 




< 





Q A 



■r < 



CO LO ro oj 



o -xt- *^r lo 



LOOJOCnLOLD COLO 



h ro CTi N CO vd ro CO 



lo lo o lo cn ld 
oj lo lo ro cn ro 

.—I CO OJ 



lo lo xj- oj cn r-x. 



icon *xt- «^- 



OJ CO CO *ct- 



O LD 


CM CO 


OOON 


LO lo 


<— t LO 


LD <xi- 

cn ro 


cn cn 

OJ LO 


CO CO CD -xl- 
LO x*- CD en 


.—I LD 

CD LO 


CO "xt 

r-x. cm 



OMHCO 



CO CO 

cn .— ■ 

CM CM 


OJ 


LO 


CO CM rx CD 

cm co cn .— i 


o 


OJ 

en 


CM CM 

CD LO 


r-x cn 
ld rx 

LD «3- 


CO 
OJ 

xj 


CO 

cn 


CO CO CD LD 

LO CM CO «— « 


CO 




CM xj" 
«^- CO 

CM r-i 


QJ ■(- 


0) 


i/i 


r- lOi V~> 

<!)■(- CD -r- 


"a; 


LO 


i — CO 

CU -r~ 



Oxj-corx-LOxj-cOLOco^H 



•xt-ocO'xrxd-cMLDi— iloo cor-x. 



x^-rx-LDOCMCDLOrxCDO 



cn^rxcnco-— *loloxj-cm cnLO 



rx,coLOLDCOCMLOOrx-^H 

xj-LOCDCDCMLDLOCOLDCO 
■— !•— tOJOJOJi— <OJOJCOCO 



CO COCO <- (LOLDxjLOrx-i 
LDCMLOCMxr-— "OJrxCO 



ro 

CM 


LO 
CM 


OJ 
CO 


r-x. 


QJ 


V) 



I OS 



o^crior^coLor----'— ■<<x>oc\joc\j o~> co 



u U 



OrONO' 



i m ro «— i i—i i 



i co en CO CO 



oairvca-H^HcnoroLncNJLn r-^csj 
i co co co en «^j- r-- co coo 



Q © - 



o^coOHOcoa^^^ojmOM nro 



u 




° ^° 


3 

o 


»N 


o o 


U 

o 




Ages 
Median 

Age 


L. 


L. 


0) 

CL 


1) 





Cfl 



0> 




-s 


J. 


*- 


HO 




e 


# c 


3 


I/) 


2 


01 


"O 


1/5 


li 


« 


H 


u 


o 

Q. 



2 8 

O Q. 

H .2 

Q 



o <— i ctj o r*-» ro o < 



o o in ro i 



i lt> ro cxj r-- o cxi O *d- 



iin in en ro co o ^n 



COrHiDnrHCOC r >rsi£)CM(JnDCO'Xl 

«^tt— icn«3-i— icoocM<d-iniDcrio>^ 

«—< C\J CO t— H CO .— I •— I >— I CM r— I 



co co ro cm O <— i<jDcoiX)cri'=j-*d-cNjr- cold 

iDCNjoofOLnroNOyDLncrifniMcri <x> cm 

r^rornrvrvrvirjixicorvrNNC^CNj i— i r-^ 

'HCMCNJ'd-i-IHmrHrHrH r— I CM CM Mr- 1 



Or-iro>d-mcococNJOoomcMCTiN u^ud 

loco^j- rHcsjLnO(Tir-«3-cvjojco cm co 

<3- ro lo 



en en 

CT> LT) 



en CO 

r- o 

Cn U3 



ea 


EH 






J, 


o> 


M 






3C 


E 


< 








(U 


•o 


</> 




© 


-a 


B 






X 


•j) 


a 




1 


§ 


0\ 

© 


u 




M 


■o 


(*"; 


u 




= 


c 


vO 


c 








6JJ 










B 










i* 






Ol 


"O 








U. 


B 







^ 


s — 


— 


i- 






^ 


<Si 


ex 
< 






c 


01 






o 


A 




. 




0» 


u 




n 


4J 


u« 


<•• 

o 




u 


<r 


<— 


EH 




^ 




© 


OX) 








6B 


< 




c 


01 



enuscor-ioooCMi— ic\ii-Hr-^oo *d- CO 
ro i—i h in 



iDHOOl 



OX) 



HOHouioomNwininoo loo 

c\JCM--<u3^uDiriLD*^-i-r)COLn<*'^- en .—< 

roLn^LniHyDcjocomooorMrv lo «3- 

CM «— I i— Ir-H IX)<— l^d-CNJ^COCOCNJ CO I— I 



CNJN^OOnHO^OMOOnOO <3-<3" 

ornrHi£)roNCNjc\JOir)rsin«tO id id 

t-iOi^UlCOCNJlDCOUOLOLOCTiCNjr^ IDO 

CM CM i— iCOi— I »X) «— i^CMCOCKJCOCO CO CM 



H CO 

r-. «— i 

CO LO 
«3" CO 



CO C\J 

ro r-. 

CO lo 



H « 



LO <CJ- 

ro lo 

C\J CO 



cu -i- dJ ■•— 



109 



Part IV, Section 3 



District Court Division Caseload Data 



■3 



V. 



THE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION 



The District Court presentation in this section will 
divide all district court matters into criminal and civil 
categories except for juvenile cases, which fall into dis- 
trict court jurisdiction but receive special treatment in 
the courts in accord with the juvenile code. 

For reporting purposes, civil district cases are cate- 
gorized as general civil, domestic relations, and civil 
magistrate cases. The implications of the title "general 
civil" describe these cases accurately, and this category 
covers those civil cases that do not fit into the other 
named categories. Domestic relations cases involve 
such issues as divorce, custody and support of children. 
Civil magistrate cases are those assigned by the chief 
district court judge to a magistrate. These cases involve 
small claims up to $500 in monetary value. The magis- 
trate has simplified trial procedures, and appeals from 
him go to the district court judge for a new trial. 
Among these three categories, civil magistrate cases 
composed approximately 64% of the district court civil 
filings during the 1978-79 fiscal year, but because these 
cases generally require only a small amount of time 
from filing to disposition, this category constituted the 
smallest pending caseload at the end of the year. 
Graphs included in this division compare caseloads 
among these three categories. The aging table for civil 
district cases is not broken into categories; rather, the 
data is lumped as a whole for space saving reasons and 
because a breakdown of ages into civil categories is of 
questionable interest. An aging graph is provided to 
supplement the data. 

The two juvenile tables in the pages that follow sum- 
marize juvenile proceedings during the 1978-79 fiscal 
year. The first deals with petitions initiated against 
children who are "delinquent," "dependent," "neglect- 
ed," "undisciplined," or who have violated probation. 
With the exception of the last column in this table, the 
numbers presented record the offenses alleged to have 
been committed and conditions alleged to have existed 
during the year and will not give the actual number of 
children before the court. One petition may include 
several offenses or conditions, and more than one peti- 
tion may be filed against a child during the year. The 
second table presents the number of hearings for juve- 



nile cases and divides those into "retained" or "dis- 
missed" petitions. Juvenile petitons may be dismissed 
for failure to prove that a child is delinquent, undisci- 
plined, dependent, or neglected or if a child fitting into 
one of these categories is not in need of the care, pro- 
tection, or discipline of the state. Petitions not dis- 
missed are recorded in the "retained" column. 

Presentation of criminal offenses at district court 
level remains fairly straightforward. District court has 
exclusive original jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases, 
but district court authority in felony cases extends only 
to conducting preliminary hearings to determine 
whether there is probable cause to bind the defendant 
over to superior court. District court criminal cases 
constitute the bulk of all district court cases. Caseload 
summary tables for this division record 1,152,519 crim- 
inal filings for the year as opposed to 279,548 civil fil- 
ings. Traffic cases comprise 69% of the criminal filings, 
the remainder being composed of a variety of offenses 
that are categorized as non-motor vehicle cases. Crimi- 
nal cases that were disposed of this year passed through 
the courts rapidly. The median age for the 787,465 traf- 
fic cases disposed of statewide was 21 days, very close 
to the 19-day median for the 347,174 non-motor vehicle 
cases. 

As indicated before, the tables in this section are 
compiled from information reported by the clerks of 
superior court. In addition, the District Attorney in 
District 15B has furnished the Administrative Office of 
the Courts with information that indicates that the dis- 
trict court criminal data for Orange County may con- 
tain inaccuracies. Also a recent on-site verification in 
Mecklenburg County has indicated that the district 
court criminal pending case statistics for Mecklenburg 
County contained in this report are inflated. As of the 
printing of this report these discrepancies have not 
been completely resolved to allow printing of corrected 
data. 

This section of the Annual Report depicts the 
1978-79 fiscal year in the district courts. The caseload 
volume is obviously very large compared to that of the 
appellate or superior courts, and this volume is sum- 
marized in the pages that follow. 



II 



M 

I 
L 

L 
I 

N 
S 


F 

C 
A 
S 
E 

S 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 
1971-1979 



2.0 



1.5 



0_ 



0.5. 



0.0 



4 * FILINGS 

B ° DISPOSITIONS 

8~ — ftj[) PENDINe 




9- -8 



e-- 



■o u — ♦ 



& 



.. • 9 



71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78-79 

DISTRICT COURT.. AS A WHOLE. HAS EXPERIENCED INCREASED 
CASELOADS OVER THE PAST EIGHT YEARS . COMPARED TO I 97 I , 
THE 1978-79 FIGURES INDICATE A 52.6% INCREASE IN FILINGS, 
A 48.3% RISE IN THE NUMBER OF DISPOSITIONS. AND WHILE IT IS 
NOT OBVIOUS FROM THE GRAPH. PENDING CASELOAD HAS MORE 
THAN DOUBLED SJWCE 1971. 



112 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURT DIVISION 

1978-79 

FILINGS 



GENERALCIVIL —46,397 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS — 54,063 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE — 179,088 



CRIM. NON-MOTOR VEH — 356,292 




MOTOR VEHICLE — 796,227 



DISPOSITIONS 



GENERAL CIVIL — 41,548 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS — 48,633 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE — 177,698 



CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEH — 347,174 




MOTOR VEHICLE 787,465 



These pie charts show marked similarities. Dispositions as a percentage of filings are: Motor Vehicle — 98.9%, Gen- 
eral Civil — 89.5%, Domestic Relations — 90.0%, Civil Magistrate — 99.2%, and Non-Motor Vehicle — 97.4%. 



CASELOAD SUMMARIES FOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 
DISTRICT COURTS 

July I,1978-June30, 1979 



Filings 



District 1 


Pending 

7/1/78 


Total 


General 
Civil 


Domestic 
Relations 


Small 
Claims 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Disposed 
to Caseload 


Pending 
6/30/79 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 




11 
125 
117 
167 

87 
323 

43 


130 
832 
453 
455 
376 
1,120 
263 


18 
L95 

90 
102 

41 

106 

27 




23 
41 
46 

LOO 
23 

326 
40 


89 

'.'-It, 
317 
253 
312 
688 
196 


141 
957 
070 
622 
463 
1,443 
306 


120 
776 
423 

393 

398 

1,229 

245 


85.1 
81.0 
74.2 
63.1 
85.9 
85.1 
80.0 


21 
181 

147 

229 

65 

214 

61 


District Totals 




87 i 


3,629 


579 




599 


2,451 


4,502 


3,584 


79.6 


918 


District 2 
























Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 




379 
28 

a 54 
28 

179 


2,404 
176 

1,525 
147 
962 


139 

22 

94 

6 

82 




419 

17 
214 

45 
129 


1,846 
137 

1,217 

96 

751 


2,783 

204 
1,979 

175 
1,141 


2,429 
168 

1,674 
129 

1,017 


87.2 
82.3 
84.5 
73.7 
89.1 


354 

36 

305 

46 
124 


District Totals 


1 


,068 


5,214 


343 




:■'.;' 4 


4,047 


6,282 


5,417 


86.2 


865 


District 3 
























Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


1 
1 


476 

,023 

88 

,561 


1,466 

3,117 

285 

4,128 


246 

685 

39 

667 




367 

834 

67 

772 


853 
1,598 

179 
2,689 


1,942 

4,140 

373 

5,689 


1,286 

3,177 

290 

4,004 


66.2 
76.7 

77.7 
70.3 


656 

96 3 

83 

1,685 


District Totals 


3 


,148 


8,996 


1,637 


2 


,040 


5,319 


12,144 


8,757 


72.1 


3,387 


District 4 
























Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


1 


471 

78 

,241 

362 


2,238 

344 
3,879 
3,198 


263 

44 
315 
299 


1 


312 

104 

,285 

440 


1,663 

196 
2,279 
2,459 


2,709 

422 

5,120 

3,560 


2,120 

344 

3,721 

3,039 


78.2 
81.5 
72.6 
85.3 


589 

78 

1,399 

521 


District Totals 


2 


,152 


9,659 


921 


2 


,141 


6,597 


11,811 


9,224 


78.0 


2,587 


District 5 
























New Hanover 
Pender 


1 


,956 

178 


6,411 
805 


1,237 
154 


1 


,257 
152 


3,917 
499 


8,367 

983 


6,020 
755 


71.9 
76.8 


2,347 
228 


District Totals 


2 


,134 


7,216 


1,391 


1 


,409 


4,416 


9,350 


6,775 


72.4 


2,575 


District 6 
























Bertie 
Hal i fax 
Hertford 
Northampton 




257 

737 
245 
227 


1,177 
2,545 
1,242 
1,065 


78 
207 
272 
186 




172 

44:-: 

183 

36 


927 

1,890 

787 

843 


1,434 
3,282 
1,487 
1,292 


1,030 
2,333 
1,073 
1,044 


71.8 
71.0 
72.1 
80.8 


404 

949 

414 
248 


District Totals 


1 


,466 


6,029 


743 




839 


4,447 


7,495 


5,480 


73.1 


2,015 


District 7 
























Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wil son 




591 
776 
596 


4,298 
3,412 
4,093 


392 
428 
479 




599 
524 
686 


3,307 
2,460 
2,928 


4,889 
4,188 
4,689 


4,093 
3,224 
3,802 


83.7 
76.9 

81.0 


796 
964 
887 


District Totals 


1 


,963 


11,803 


1,299 


1 


,809 


8,695 


13,766 


11,119 


80.7 


2,647 


District 8 
























Greene 
Lenoir 

Wayne 


1 

1 


100 

,065 
,733 


545 
4,413 
5,433 


27 

712 
1,143 


1 


128 
866 
,181 


390 
2,835 
3,109 


645 
5,478 
7,166 


534 
4,080 
4,808 


82.7 
74.4 
67.0 


111 
1,398 
2,358 


District Totals 


2 


,898 


10,391 


1,882 


2 


,175 


6,334 


13,289 


9,422 


70.9 


3,867 


District 9 
























Frankl in 
Granvil le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 




14h 
192 
424 
539 
332 


1,174 
1,691 
1,575 
2,271 
855 


173 
177 
198 
175 
119 




251 

1// 
251 
393 
153 


750 
1,337 
1,126 
1,703 

583 


1,620 
1,883 
1,999 
2,810 
1,187 


1,204 
1,551 
1,322 
2,356 
755 


74.3 
82.3 
66.1 
83.8 
63.6 


416 
332 
677 
454 
432 


District Totals 


1 


,933 


7,566 


842 


1 


,225 


5,499 


9,499 


7,188 


75.6 


2,311 


District 10 

























Wake 



5,237 



15,586 



4,480 



2,376 



,730 



20,823 



13,698 



65.7 



7,125 



114 



CASELOAD SUMMARIES EOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 
DISTRICT COURTS 

July I,1978-June30, 1979 



Filings 



District 11 


Pending 

7/1/78 


Total 


General 
Civil 


Domestic 
Relations 


Small 
Claims 


Total 

Caseload 


Disposed 


% Disposed 
to Caseload 


Pending 
6/30/79 


Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


1,021 
1,173 

487 


2,312 
3,332 
1,887 


433 
528 
649 


492 

890 

9 


1,387 
1,914 
1,229 


3,333 
4,505 
2,374 


2,230 
3,081 
1,714 


66.9 
68.3 
72.1 


1,103 

1,424 

660 


District Totals 


2,681 


7,531 


1,610 


1,391 


4,530 


10,212 


7,025 


68.7 


3,187 


District 12 




















Cumberland 
Hoke 


2,858 
178 


12,106 
835 


1,707 
232 


2,630 

88 


7,769 
515 


14,964 
1,013 


11,615 
802 


77.6 
79.1 


3,349 
211 


District Totals 


3,036 


12,941 


1,939 


2,718 


8,284 


15,977 


12,417 


77.7 


3,560 


District 13 




















Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 


!89 

630 
896 


1,466 

550 

2,835 


373 
200 

457 


126 
206 
422 


967 

144 
1,956 


1,855 
1,180 
3,731 


1,373 

357 

2,800 


74.0 
30.2 
75.0 


482 
823 
931 


District Totals 


1,915 


4,851 


1,030 


754 


3,067 


6,766 


4,530 


66.9 


2,236 


District 14 




















Durham 


4,088 


15,385 


1,947 


1,643 


11,795 


19,473 


14,795 


75.9 


4,678 


District 15A 




















Alamance 


450 


3,317 


542 


1,021 


1,754 


3,767 


3,157 


83.8 


610 


District 15B 




















Chatham 
Orange 


336 
798 


1,304 
1,911 


111 
315 


265 
503 


928 
1,093 


1,640 
2,709 


1,370 
1,853 


83.5 
68.4 


270 
856 


District Totals 


1,134 


3,215 


426 


768 


2,021 


4,349 


3,223 


74.1 


1,126 


District 16 




















Robeson 
Scotland 


1,483 
376 


5,955 
1,516 


1,101 
143 


1,143 
230 


3,711 
1,143 


7,438 
1,892 


5,760 
1,406 


77.4 
74.3 


1,678 
486 


District Totals 


1,859 


7,471 


1,244 


1,373 


4,854 


9,330 


7,166 


76.8 


2,164 


District 17 




















Caswell 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 


127 

Vto 
155 

780 


650 
2,955 

804 
3,269 


41 
389 

94 
561 


139 

680 
195 
429 


470 
1,886 

515 
2,279 


777 
3,554 

959 
4,049 


620 
2,970 

821 
3,265 


79.7 
83.5 
85.6 
80.6 


157 
584 
138 

784 


District Totals 


1,661 


7,678 


1,085 


1,443 


5,150 


9,339 


7,676 


82.1 


1,663 


District 18 




















Guilford 


5,175 


21,187 


3,590 


3,720 


13,877 


26,362 


21,309 


80.8 


5,053 


District 19A 




















Cabarrus 
Rowan 


759 

538 


3,066 
3,497 


737 
505 


688 
644 


1,641 
2,348 


3,825 
4,035 


2,672 
3,281 


69.8 

81.3 


1,153 
754 


District Totals 


1,297 


6,563 


1,242 


1,332 


3,989 


7,860 


5,953 


75.7 


1,907 


District 19B 




















Montgomery 
Randol ph 


386 
378 


1,062 
2,107 


175 
299 


104 
667 


783 
1,141 


1,448 
2,485 


980 
2,055 


67.6 
82.6 


468 
430 


District Totals 


764 


3,169 


4/4 


771 


1,924 


3,933 


3,035 


77.1 


898 


District 20 




















Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


302 

485 

1,950 

502 

445 


911 
2,140 
2,593 
1,955 
2,024 


87 
261 
220 
311 
281 


151 
349 
398 
228 
378 


673 
1,530 
1,975 
1,416 
1,365 


1,213 
2,625 
4,543 
2,457 
2,469 


1,010 

2,048 
2,808 
1,900 
1,907 


83.2 
78.0 
61.8 
77.3 
77.2 


203 

577 

1,735 

557 

562 


District Totals 


3,684 


9,623 


1,160 


1,504 


6,959 


13,307 


9,673 


72.6 


3,634 



115 



CASELOAD SUMMARIES FOR CIVIL CASES IN THE 
DISTRICT COURTS 

July I,1978-June30, 1979 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
I rede 1 1 

District Totals 

District 23 

Al leghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 
District 24 



Burke 

Caldwell 
Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 

District 28 
Buncombe 

District 29 



Filings 



Pending 

7/1/78 Total 



2,172 



124 

747 
111 
600 

1,582 



78 
123 
622 
196 

1,019 



12,772 



586 
3,169 

541 
3,527 

7,823 



296 

534 
2,509 
1,704 

5,043 



General 
Civil 

2,670 



50 
465 

90 
593 

1,198 



94 

54 
824 
175 

1,147 



Domestic 
Relations 



2,513 



120 
948 

131 
683 



71 



452 
222 



Small 
( laims 

7,589 



416 
1,756 

320 
2,251 

4,743 



131 
392 
,233 

,307 



Total % Disposed 

C aseload Disposed to Caseload 



833 



3,063 



14,944 



710 
3,916 

652 
4,127 

9,405 



374 

657 
3,131 
1,900 

6,062 



12,348 



548 
3,027 

496 
3,318 

7,389 



275 

570 
2,145 
1,598 

4,588 



649 
460 
882 

1,991 



14,764 

1,735 

488 
183 

671 

1,672 



2,288 
2,388 
3,969 

8,645 



29,578 



5,736 



2,979 
1,204 

4,183 



6,081 



303 
302 
928 

1,533 



4,994 



610 



374 
282 

656 



1,158 



654 
520 
785 

1,959 



6,235 



1,717 



659 

315 

9 M 



1,558 



1,331 
1,566 
2,256 

5,153 



18,349 



3,409 



1,946 
607 

2,553 



3,365 



2,937 
2,848 
4,851 

10,636 



44,342 



7,471 



3,467 
1,387 

4,854 



7,753 



2,282 
2,192 
3,603 

8,077 



29,897 



5,511 



2,810 
1,159 

3,969 



5,498 



82.6 



77.1 
77.2 
76.0 
80.3 

78.5 



73.5 
86.7 
68.5 
84.1 

75.6 



77.6 
76.9 

74.2 

75.9 



67.4 



73.7 



81.0 
83.5 

81.7 



70.9 



Pending 
6/30/79 

2,596 



162 

889 

156 
809 

2,016 



99 

87 

986 

302 

1,474 



Avery 




114 


54 7 


188 


2 


357 


661 


560 


84.7 


101 


Madison 




63 


255 


29 


67 


159 


318 


236 


74.2 


82 


Mitchell 




53 


356 


74 


61 


221 


409 


341 


83.3 


68 


Watauga 




257 


795 


288 


185 


>.?.2 


1,052 


787 


74.8 


265 


Yancey 




64 


391 


57 


99 


235 


455 


366 


80.4 


89 


District 


Totals 


55] 


2,344 


636 


414 


1,294 


2,895 


2,290 


79.1 


605 


District 


25 





















655 

656 

1,248 

2,559 



14,445 



1,960 



657 
228 

885 



2,255 



Henderson 


339 


1,269 


231 


481 


55 7 


1,608 


1,144 


71.1 


464 


Mc Dowel 1 


S32 


814 


147 


206 


461 


1,146 


757 


66.0 


389 


Polk 


82 


253 


16 


79 


158 


335 


262 


78.2 


73 


Rutherford 


16] 


1,401 


198 


149 


854 


1,562 


1,251 


80.0 


311 


Transyl vania 


35 3 


854 


152 


221 


481 


1,207 


868 


71.9 


339 


District Totals 


1,267 


4,591 


744 


1,336 


2,511 


5,858 


4,282 


73.0 


1,576 


District 30 




















Cherokee 


133 


4 1 7 


27 


146 


244 


550 


285 


51.8 


265 


Clay 


21 


16:; 


35 


18 


115 


189 


151 


79.8 


38 


Graham 


40 


125 


14 


31 


80 


165 


112 


67.8 


53 


Haywood 


419 


1,618 


253 


265 


1,100 


2,037 


1,563 


76.7 


474 


Jackson 


225 


616 


138 


126 


352 


841 


627 


74.5 


214 


Macon 


152 


4;; 


93 


111 


.3 7 3 


629 


401 


63.7 


::s 


Swain 


55 


311 


:'.5 


70 


156 


366 


268 


73.2 


98 


District Totals 


1,045 


3,732 


645 


767 


2,320 


4,777 


3,407 


71.3 


1,370 


STATE TOTALS 


79,085 


279,548 


46,397 


54,063 


179,088 


358,633 


267,879 


74.6 


90,754 



116 



T 
H 


U 

s 

A 
N 
D 
S 


F 

C 
A 
S 
E 
S 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CIVIL CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1971-1979 



350 



300 J 



250. 



200 _ 



150. 



.00. 



50. 



e- — 



-e-' 



•e- 



A. 



4 * FILINGS 

B ° DISPOSITIONS 

9- END p ENDING 




-9- 



-9-" 



..-0- 



X 



<r' 



71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78-79 

THIS GRAPH SHOWS A STEADY GROWTH RATE FOR FILINGS, 
DISPOSITIONS, AND PENDING CASES j THE 1978-79 FIGURES SHOW 
AT LEAST A Q0% INCREASE OVER 197) COUNTS AND AT LEAST 
A 26% INCREASE OVER THE 1975 CASELOAD. 



17 



T 
Hi 


U 

s 

A 

N 

D 
S 


F 

C 

A 

S 
E 

S 



GENERAL CIVIL, DOMESTIC RELATIONS, AND CIVIL MAGISTRATE 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS— 1978-79 



150. 



100 



50. 







7 



^ 



TILINGS 
DISPOSITIONS 
END PENDING 





GENERAL CIVIL DOMESTIC RELATIONS CIVIL MAGISTRATE 



THE BULK OF CIVIL DISTRICT CASES RECEIVES A MAGISTRATE'S 
ATTENTION j DURING THE 1978-79 YEAR. 64 . I 'A OF THE FILINGS 
AND 66. 3X OF THE DISPOSITIONS IN THE CIVIL DISTRICT 
COURTS WERE CIVIL MAGISTRATE CASES. THIS CATEGORY ALSO 
RETAINS THE SMALLEST PENDING CASELOAD. 25 . S% OF ALL 
PENDING CIVIL CASES. 



118 



r-~ o cm «— < i— i t— i 



O LO CM i— i CO 





*L n 


OONWfOON 


CT> 






i— i *d- 


tQ 










E 


| | 






'ea 

- 


5 = 






















a 




o o o o o o o 


O 


E 


^ 






C/3 









ooooo o 



OOOvJOO CM 



o o o o 



O O O O O 



CM ** tO 



O CM O O CM 



-nmoo *3" 



co co .— i cm •— < CO en r-- 

CO <3" CT> CM CM CO CM CM 

lo CM CM cm r-. — I CM 



H 


o 


I"- LO 


r- 1 


«=r 


o 


r^ 


CO 


to 


H 


LO 


H 


.— 1 


CM 


O «* 


O CO 


r^ 


o 


LO 


<=i- 


ai 


at 


CO 


en 


CTi 


■St 




r-. 




CM 


r^ 


cr> 


en 


LO 




CM 


-J 


LO 




CM 


CO 






























«— i 




i-H 




co 




<— t 




CM 


*=J- 


1—1 




CM 


CM 



CO LO 


co 


co to en en 


LO tO 


CM 


LO CTi CO r- 1 


CO "3- 


CO 


CO CO to CO 



LO CM i— I LO I 



CM LO LO UD CO 

CM CO CO «tf" 

i—i CM 



3 

O 

U 



s _ 

ill 



« rOHfOfl-ONn i— i 



rowOOOr- 1 O to 



CM O CO *=f LO LO 



to O CO O CO 



o to o ^j- 



«— i .— i r-* «c±- co 



LO CM «3" CTi 



«^- CM LO 



O CM CM 



CD <^J- i— i O LO 



■2 

(D 
0Q 



■w* 


o^ 


C 


0\ 


— ■ 




c« 


«. 


a> 


o 


CIS 


o 


03 


a 


u 


c 

3 



OOHHQHO CO 



i— i .— < O O .—l CO 



cm en o ^j- co co 

CM «— I CM t— I CO 

«3" CO .— ■ CO 



OHOO t— ) 



r-. in ai o r-. 
cm en LO ^ i— i 

CM tO LO LO 



O O i-HO <-H 



CO i— I O to LO 

LO .-H O «3- <-< 

cm i—i o co r-- 



CM O CM 



o en en 

■=3" i— * LO 
O .-I i-H 



O OO O O 



U 

<*- 
o 

c 

o 



o 

D. 

-y> 



3C 

r- 

9~ 



fl 



«d- .— i r-- co ai *d- 



cm *=j- <— i to co 

<t -HHLD CM 

i—i i— i ro 



r-» ^j- 


H 


to i— i i— i r-» 


LT) 


jj 


ro t— i 


LD 


nn<t cm 






•—I 


i-H 




i— • 


£ 






























'— 


LO LO 


O 


co r-» CM CM 


CT. 


O 



c 

c 



^ cmi— < o o o <— i i— < m 

« 3 



CM CZ) CM CM i— i r- 



«=3" O CM CO 

CO CM LO 



r-lCnOrH «— . 



CO LO CO 



O LO .-H LO 


■—. 


c 


ctiNin n 


CO 


c 


1—1 


CM 


E 



t— I C\J C\J o u^ 



.— I *3" LO 






1 



3 O 

o a. 
H ■ ^ 



O tO CO CO CO CTi LO 

cm r-. cm en en cm «3- 

i— i r-. «3" CO CO CM CM 



.— I CO 



en co •=*■ en r-» 
cm to r-. CM i—l 



to r-» o «3- 

OONOiO 
CM i— I CM O 



o **■ i— i en 

CM ** CM CO 

■nnNO 



O LO 


LO 


onrr* 


CM LO 


r-- 


co nrs <t 


o r-. 


r-* 


onoo 



.2 3 

o c 
ex o 



"O 5 S- <U cu cr cr 



o c .— c 

M- -r- <D -r- 

13 CU +-> S- -C 



U U Q. CL -i— -f- 



•■— i/i o 


<s> 


.,- 


■r- 


T 


0> 


i— CD f— 


n 




S- 




■o 


ac ui 


H 


+-> 


-t-> 


< 


c 


=3 O C 


rrt 




(/) 


CI) 


(1) 


a -a o 


L/) 


'■- 


■1- 


z 


11- 



o 
u 
D. 



19 



O O CO CO 



O O co ro 



WOOHf 



>— < O CO <=J- 



ro o CO 



*a- co .-h co 



U 



j- a .£ 

.- I | 



O O LO LO 



r- < O LO O 



CM O «— 1 CO 



C\J O 1— I CO 



O O i-H rH 



o o «=*■ CO o 



CO O O CO 



LD i>D Lf) LO 



> cnj cnj r-» 



C\J CNJ LO 



co lo -— 1 co «* r-» 

co c\j lo lo r- CD 

LT) CSJ ON LO "^J- 0*> 

r-t rH cj- 



•— • en «d- 


^f- 


C\J LO 


LO CO LO 





rH CNJ 


n CO rH 


-r 


ON LT) 



OOitj ro 



r-. lo lo r-- 



MOcn rH 



r-. co co co 



3 

o 
U 



s 1 I 



r-~ co «3- on 



LD O LO 



r 

O 



rH CNJ LO ON 



N UD O CO 
CO LO o 

i-h CnJ 



ON CO O I"-. CO 



LO "d" ON ON 

CM t— I CNJ LO 



1DH LO 
C\J r-l CO 

CO 1— I <3" 



0) 

E 
C 



£0 



CD "5t CVJ 


t£> 


CNJ CO CO 


CO 


LO *3" ^t CO UD 


LO *d- ON 


ON 


rH CD 


CM 


«* r»* lo «^f cnj 


r-l r-l 


CO 


CM «"J- 


LO 





ON rH ON ON 
CNJ CO CNJ 00 

rH rH CNJ 



CD CO C\J LO 



O CNJ ON rH 



CNJ CD t-H O CD CO 



CNJ CD CNJ 



CNJ LO CNJ ON 



120 



V 








Q 




Of 




J= 




*-* 


3- 


c 


r 


I -= 




y 


^ 


^ 


— 


-r 


m 


cs 


d 




B 


u 


a 



CO ON CNJ -rj- 



O CD CD O 



rH CNJ ON CNJ 
LO ^i" CO CO 
CO «d" «=*• CNJ 



O ld r- co 



CNJ LO <* CNJ 1 



-— I O CD CD CD 



r-l LO LO rH CNJ 

LO 1— 1 LO LO O 

CVJHHHH 



CNJ rH CD CO 



CNJ LO ON 


r-« 


LO <3" 


CO CNJ 


LO 


ON «3- 


ro LO 


o>. 


co 



O ^^ -— 1 CSJ 



OOO O 



u 

ac 

o 



en O CnJ r-- 

^H t—< ^J" UD 



co «* eo en 











.22 X; 


CO CO 


LO 


LO CNJ CNJ 


CT» 


-^ ra 


<3" CNJ 




CO LO CO 


CNJ 


>-. — 


«cfr 


**" 


r ~ l *"• 


CO 


o'l 



CO Kf CNJ ON 

ON CNJ O 1— ' 

CD CM CO 1— 1 

-^- CO CO i-H 



«3" O CO 
CO CO o 
LO O CO 



^J" rH CNJ LO LO 
O LO C\J LO LO 

cnj lo co co r-- 



OHrJ- 
CO CO rH 

CNJ CD h- 



lo cnj r^. 

rH O rH 

LO CO ^ 

rH CNJ 



co r-- cd 

r-» lo O 

CO CO CO 

i-H CNJ 



.2 « 



4-> -r- r— 





cu 








r" 


c 






















4-> 






e 




L~ 


(_) 


_^ 




c 


<V 


a> 




c 


c 








t_ 








c 


S- 








CD 


fd 






" 


CJ3 


o_ 




3 


< ) 



r— +-> 



E -^ 
3 o 



•r- 3 
C .2 -O 

cu to E 



on CO 



*$■ C\J LO 



!?8 
I fi 
££5 



C/) r= 



CD t— 1 t-H 



O O O co 



o o o o 



oyD \£> 



O CNJ C\J 



LO "=1- 

r-. p-. 
en o 



CO CO 


U3 


CNJOCM H 


LO LO 


C\J 


.— 1 LO CO CO 


lo r-- 


CO 


^t coin co 



,-H i-H ** 



r-H ^f LO 



^w ro 



,-< O ^H 



3 

O 

U 
"C 

■M 
C/l 

S 

o> 



-— » CM P"> 



ininnH cnj 



.— < i-H O ^- «£> 



u 

CD 

OS 



O 



LO LO 


H 


<3- r- 


LO LO 


C\J 


en co 


C\J ro 


LO 


CO t-H 



LO "d" *^ LO CTi 
CNJ <— < LO O CTi 



U 



3C 



."5 3 

"S 
o 
a. 

en 

5 



01 

c 
c 



co cnj lo 



c\j CO *d- cm lo 



CO lo 
lo r-- 

C\J t-H 



lo O LO 



o lo <— i r-» 



ro CM LO 



^r lo 


<y\ 


CNJ ^ 


r-- «h- 




*d- CO 


•— i 


CM 





.2 x> 
o 5 



-3 



H 5 



O UD 


lq 


O O t-H LO 


UD O 


to 


cnj r-- c\j lo 


r- *h- 


»-H 


«jd cr. CO cnj 



cm ro lo 



O LO 
CO LO 

en o 



-ti £ 



o c 

D. O 



JZ C7l -r- 







r3 


o 


CU JZ 








E Q- 


-M 


« 


U 


O r— 


u 


T3 


c 


CX> O 






>. 


-{-J TJ 




a> 




c; c 


+-> 


-C 


'.>-j 


o ra 




H 




EI cd 




X3 




Q 


*■ 





121 



O CM i—< *=j- 



OOhwO CO 



i— i eg en oj 



si o ro .— < i— i o lo 





& a 


i— < 


r— ( 




3 •- 






E 


i 1 






3 


>s 














"-: 




CMODOOO 


C> 


E 




LO 01 


LO 


u 






C/3 


u 







HQ^Ol «— I 



O CD o ^t 



HOCOO en 






O O O O i-H *-H 



o o o o o 



co CD CD CO 



■X) ro cm «=t <-* CO 

I * — • » — # LO 



oiin On i— • 
O^CMOVD CTi 

ro r-» co i-h lo 



f-n r-* <sj- ro 
<— i cm CO «d" 

iH CMN CM 



LT1NMDO 
tO «fl- r-t «3" CM 

ro «— < cm m oj 



rOi£l N LO 



f— I i— ' I CM LO 



CD LO CO LO I 



3 
o 

u 



5 




0) 




e 


r- 


r. 


© 


ks 


01 





*S 


lo en o r^ 






s/i 


1 i 




c 






S 


°Q 




n 






3 


_£ 


OCvJtH 


cc 


V 




u 








U 





O O CM O - 



Oro-jHOi 
co ^j- O en O 
•— I CM CO i— I CO 



to co <3- lo co 



o i— i o CM 



•— » -— • "^- en lo 
co "3- r> co co 

CO LO LO 



C3 O i— • t— t CM 



O O <— i i— < CM 



o o >— i lo r-- 



CD O O CO O CO 



O O co O O 



r-H ro 



«— i cm «3- r-- 



CM O CD CM 






.— I «3- 1— t 

CM CO CM 
LO CO LO 



W- ON 

o - 



en 
o 
a 



0) 

B 

c 
C3 





O CM O CO O 


p 


s * 


^H CO CM CO 


< > 


n 






> 6 5 








en -— < co cm o 


o 




«— • en co <o co 


«— 1 



i-H «3- 



O CO LO «-H «a- CO 



.— i co en co lo 
cm lo t— • cd en 

i-H CM CO 



cd lo cm en r-- 



i CD LO CM r^ LO 



lo cm o r^ lo 



rHlOCO CD 

00 CM LO LO 
.— ■ CO LO 



^3" CM CM CO 



s © 
o a. 



OCOCOON 

*-H «=J- O CD O 

o cd co en en 



co r-. lo co en 
<3- cm en .— < co 

mo^ro co 



cd lo ■— i r» lo 

LO CO ^ CO LO 

lo cm co r^ co 



cm cm co r-^ 

co en cd r^ 

CM I- 1 LO O 

CM CM CO CO 



•■=: £ 



o c 

a o 



<i:q;ood 



■o o r— 



ro -a 


OJ CD 


■ r- 


•1— 


en <d ■<- 


X -r- 


•r- "O 


s_ 


^ 


oj at jk: :>: 


cu > 


> CD 


4-> 


4-> 


f-Tr-TD 


i— CO 


fO i- 




CO 


1 (/> •!— <TJ 


< Q 


Q >— 


■■- 


■■- 


< «dl 3 >- 



dJ-DP-P C 
> fD -i- (O ro 

<t E SI 3 >- 



0) 


J3 


(.J 


CD 5 


■c 




.*: td 




*- 


i- r- 




■M 


3 co 


<n 


</l 


CO o 


O 


■r- 






122 



'oo r- 



en «— < co lo o o o co 



•—* CM 



E I E 



t— » O O «— I O CM 



OONroinHN co 



C/3 r^ 



O O O ■— < O rH 



roowmooo co 



.—I t£) 

co cr> 

CO LT) 



LT> UD ^3" O LO 
m «3" <yO I— 1 «^> 

lo ^3- «-h co «d- 



co ro us r-^ ro in i£i 
IT) O IT) H N 1* n 
t-h «— t o ro oj «— < 



LT) O LO 



HCM roro^ CO 



r- 1 «— 1 c\j CO CO m r» 



o 
U 



1 I 

o 12 



V :— 



OS 



■— I O O O «— I CM 



O CM O CO «=t co - 



1 o o o o o o >— 1 



CO 









09 


(*9 


03 


U 


u 


c 

3 


„ _ 


— : 




1 


>- 


I 






u 





CT> O 
LD CM 



o — 

o >• 



t/1 

o 
a. 



cm co un u3 co 

imninrs h 

CO .—I CM CM 



•* r-- «d- o^ •— 1 lo 



oinnHNOOO) co 



15 



at 



05 



o u-> in 



«3- c\j o c\j lo ro 



OOOt-H^TO^H LO 



_4> 

.2 -o 



r3 



■a i _ H 



H 5 



O CXi 

.— 1 LO 
CO f* 

CM «~H 



«3- r- cm t-i 00 

■^■LnvDlD U3 
■HN tMCSJ CO 



ICvJfONrHCO 

• •— I <^3 CM O <X> 

1 i-H^HDit CM 



.■tt i 






C 


c 


O 


BQ 














03 


09 


O 


r- 


a. 





CO 




hs 




CM 




_M 


C 


l_> 


O 




4-» 


5- 


t/> 


+-> 


fTJ 


</> 


O 






Q 






L. 


at 


s- >> 


u 





-* £ 


O O 




CD 


3 


<D </) 






ro 


O tn C 


c 


■a 


-* 


-C c 


s- 


u 


s- >>-c 


2 -iL O 




c 


O i— 


■m m 


■M 


■4-* 


CU ro ro 


ra 


cu 


U O 


3 1- 


t/1 


trt 


.C .— S- 




5 


zn 


e: d_ 


cr: i— 


T~ 


- r~ 


O (_> CJ3 


ac -d e: 


00 



Hi 



[23 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT CIVIL CASES 

1978-79 



JUDGE — 55,457 



VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 




MAGISTRATE — 166,647 



RY — 457 (.1%) 
■ ■ ; ' ■' - 16,242 



6.5% of civil district dispositions were by clerks, .1% by jury, 62.2% by magistrates, 20.7% by judges, 4.4% by voluntary 
dismissal, and 6.1% by other methods. 



124 



O C\J -3- ( 

o «— ' t— i ( 



> •— i en co 

I fO CM CM 



WOCOH 



«* xH- xH- «-H 

cm ro «d- lo 



i— i c\j *d- o en 
t-H id m f— • csj 



t-H t—i CM 



W ^ CO OO LO CO N 

<3- ro n ■* ro rg n 



r-x co r-x lo ct> en 

rHrHrHi-HM t-H 



t— ! CM LO i— I 



«=f vO i_n 



co lo ro cm 



C °" — 



co ld cti en Ln ro LO 
lo «3- -o lo c\j co *h- 



NWOHN 
i— i xH- lo ro «d- 



CM LO LO LO 

oi ro ^a- cnj 



CX> r-H CM CD CTi 

LO «J Oi CM LO 



co en co 



i-h ro LD co CNJ 
cnj cnj o ro -xj- 



o. o 
C ftp 7 



lo CO cm cm lo x^- lo lo 

C\J ID CTi O N LO rH LO 



ro -^ co ro co lo 
r-. cni r-x cnj co r-. 



en cnj ro co cm 

NO^Oh CD 



CM CM M O CO 

cm ro r-x en co 



«ct* en 
O en 



o co en co 
t— i <^ lo r- 



inHNroi 



.<J CO LD 



CO LO CO «3r CM cm 



<h- cm r^ o 



vt MCvjro ^J- 



3^ 



c\jrv<?Nt lOfON 



imu) en 



I LO CO <— • t-H 



lo cd r-. en lo 



lo cm r-. 



^■h; CM CO 
t-H CM ro CM 



Zi & 



U 



o» 

2 o 



O st O Oi iD O LO 



CD lo ro ro co en LO 
cm r-x cm en en cm ^ 

h rs tt ro ro o«j co 



t— i r-x ro lo i— i lo 



en CO «xl- en r-. 
cm lo r-x. CM t-H 

^J- r-H LO ^H O 



x^- ro lo r-x 



ro r- r-x r-x lo 



o **■ t-H en -=t 

CM xHr cm ro cm 

t— i ro r-x o cm 

cm ro ro en 



O xH- 

O ro 



O LO 
CM LO 

O r-x 



xO en co cm cm 



O ro ro xHr O 

ro ro r-x *h- co 

O ro o O «xl- 

t-H cm «— I t— i LO 



a 5 



0) 



u 



r-x. ro co lo co i-h 



CM CO cm r- 

CO CD CM LO 

■— I xj" 



< 



> LO CO LOO CO o 



i t-H ro lo 








•— 



= 
m 


en 

SI 


■a 

M 
B 


< 


-3 



^ s 



cMCOLOcocnLocn lo 



cm ro CO LO CM •—> 



en o cm lo 



r-x CO --H CM CO 

OvtHUI *-H 



CM t-H en LO 

I— I CM 



CM ■— I 



cm i— • co en 

x^- CD CM LO 
M st LO 



i-x lo lo en 
r-x cm co lo 

cm lo ro 



en «3- lo co 

-3- *-< *-i «— < 
t— ( ro cm t— i 



u 



sx 

< 



,2 < 



or-xxH^r-xCDr-.o en 



ro en cm co r-x lo o 

cm en en en ^h en cm 
co en CD r-. cm cm cd 

m CM st CNJ -H- CM 



CO LO LO CD CO 



o lo en lo lo co 

■-H cd r-x CO CO t-H 

ro o co r-x en lo 

cm ro CM CM i— I CM 



--H «3- CM O 

r-x ro ro r-x 

HHCMCM 



co cd ro en lo 

CO CO en r-x o 

O O CM O •— • 

ro ro xj- LO <Hr 



xj- lo O en ro 



cd «=r co cd en 

co com rn «3- 

LO xHr CD CM O 

CM ro CM r- 1 CM 



en r-- 

O r— 
•-H o 

x3- ro 



lo r-x LO LO LO 



«— I LO x^ ,— , lo 

xt ID vf CO •— 1 

xT COCO VD CM 

roro hcm ro 



xHr LO LO LO xj- 
LO ro CD x^ cm 
ro ro i— i 



lo ro ro lo 
LO LO CO CO 

lo en lo 



en co en t-H 
co r-~ en cm 

lo ro LO 



xH- en xH- co lo 

OxTrH<J t-H 

vt en st cm o 



S- D 3 S- OI QJ CJCT S- 

■!-> EOi-S--MLOS- +-> 

i/l (d r 3 IB (D (TJ (U (/I 

•i- U U O QCJ3 Q. CL -r- 



U- t- CD -i- 

3 cu +j s-r 

to -o s- s_ i/> 

oj >-, TO >x TO 



■r- LO O LO 
.— CD r— CL 

a. c lh E 

Z) O C TO 

OOOC1 



CD -.- -r- 



•r- 4- 4- .C 



125 



A 



CM i—t ^ cm 



rH ro cm 



O LO i— i cn CM i— < 

OO OJ >-h CO O LO 



in r^ co r^ 

LO ^ OO 



cn en ro CO 



I ("O LO CM 



LO ^T LO 
ro cm cm 



r-4 t-l CO 

LO <— l -cf 



ro n lo lt> 



E » M 



co ro ro cn 

t— 1 CM CM r-H 



<3" CTl LD CO 
CO rH CM CM 



■3-cMNCfirs r- 

CO CM <CJ" LO CM 



O cn en «d- 
ro co cm ro 



co cm ro 



CTi CM ^t <~H 

CO •— I CM LD 



CO «a- CO 
CM CO LO 



CX« rH «H^ ,-H 

NOlD CO 



r--. r-x co cn co r-- 
«^j- ro cm cm r-- co 



Cn r-. CM 

co cn cn 



cm en o r-. 
LD cm ro ro 



3 

o 
U 



f 

x 
r 









Ji < 



co ro r^. en 



en lo *d- to 



co ^j- cm en 

en CM CD r-i 

O CM CO •— < 

«3- CO CO «— « 



LO >— < CM CM 



co en r-» 

CTiCN 



HHM 



*fr CD CO CM 

CO CO O CM 

LO O CO <d- 

«*■ «* en 



co co r-. en i— i lo 



. Of^ ^ LO 



CO N COCO O CO 
«cr- co ro en lo co 

rv (D LT1 <d" rt CM 



^f •— I CM LD LO 
O LO CM LO LO 

cm lo co co r-- 



LO «d~ ro 
co en co 



cm en cm 



r-. >3- co 



o CO CO CD 



, r^ «^- t-H 



1— 1 


vn 


'■'"■ 


LO 


00 


m 


o: 


^T 


CO 


H 


^r 


CO 


CM 




CM 


rj 




CM 


r-, 


CO 


CO 


ro 


«d- 


LO 


LO 


«=j" 


LO 


*"^ 


O 


OC 


a 


1 — 


^ 


c J 


u ' 




O 


O 


LO 


Oi 


CO 


en 




fTl 


CO 


' ■ 


LO 




CO 


LO 


r-. 


CO 


CO 


r.i 




*"" * 


*"" ' 














CM 


1—1 


1—1 


~> 


,__, 


^t 


LO 


LO 


CM 


r-« 


ro 


r-. 


C3 


o 








CM 




< 1 




r^ 


lO 


( -< 


r-i 


CM 


O 


r-«. 


Q 


LO CO 


»=j- 


CO 


CO 


a. 


LO 



5 

a. 



U 



LO h*. CD 

r^ co lo 

H CM 



Hin lo 
O co ro 



■— < r-. ^J- cm 
*^- ro rH en 

■—<•—< CM 



r: 






m 


LO 


.— , 


T-H 


CO 


PH 


O 


r^. 


CO 


ro 


<3- o 


CM CM 


Of 


If. 

**. 

-3 
B 








CT". 


cn 


CT> 






<. ■' 


CM 


r»* 


^H LO 


r- co 


t/3 




■c 








'" 




CM 


LO 


r^. 








u 


» 




CO 


in 




0"> 


cn 


i n 


P-. 






CO «3" 


r-- cd 










ro 


i.L> 


o 




^T 


r-i 


en 


en 


«!f rH 


LO i— 1 




3~ 


c 


_ 


■— 1 


«— i 


l— < 


<d- 




«—• 


cn 


«fr 






i— i 


v^ 


r- 


"J 


























««- 


O 


R 


























© 


<""; 


U 




CM 


m 


LO 


LO 


CM 


ro 


CO 


CO 


LO 


LO CM 


t-H LO 




■o 




cn 


( ) 


LO 


LO 


CM 


CO 


en 


vj- 


** 


co O 


LO LO 




-. 










CO 




CM 


CM 










O 


It 


■3 


©> 
























01 


c 


e 
























< 


-3 


— 



























O CM O 

o cn ro 

CO CM «3" 



co «^- ^-* co 
lo ro lo «tf- 

^f LO ^H 



•—> co cm cn lo 
cm cm co co en 

<H(NJrH(\J 



co co cn lo 

lo ■-h o cn 

CO cm lo 



>— < LO CO 


LO 


cn lo 


«=r 


lo O *3" 


r- 


-H O O 


CM 


CO CM 


io 


CO CD LO 


r^v 


CM CO ^H 


LO 


LO 


LO 


•—i r-i 


CO 



r-* <— i en 


r- 


CM CO 


O 


LO LO ro 


CO CM <— 1 


CM 


ro r-- 




CM i— i CM 


CM «3" CM 


cn 


LO 


r^. 


CM CM CO 






SI 

< 



CO ro lo 

cn co cn 

1-* CM 



r^. lo r^ O 
r^ co cn lo 



ro *3- cm ro 



O lo lo 00 

cn cm co lo 

cn cm co lo 

CM CM CM 



cn ro o 
CO «tf- «d" 



■ r-. cm lo lo 



cn cd lo -— < r-» 

<=j- lo r-- cm en 

*=r CD o CM CM 

«* rH I/) CNJ «t 



cm o lo r-. 

ro CM <rj- LO 

r-H *rj- r-^ r-*. 

CO CM CM CM 



O CO r- 1 

in con 
*rj- ro co 



■3- O ro 



CD lo r-^ 
cn cd cn 

rH CO r-( 



o r» o cn 

LO CM r-. CO 

rHCJlCfl CO 

r-i ro rH CM 



cn ro r-i cn 

cm ro cn co 

co cm rH ro 

cm *rr co ro 



lo <rj- r- 

cn lo co 
r- cn co 



rn co co r-. 

rH cn LO LO 

rH ro ro co 

rn cm ro 



VOtNJN^M 
r-H ro r-. lo ro 

^- ro LO «3- ^J- 



co «rj- CD r-x 
O CM LO CO 

<-^ <d" LO I— I 



Cn rH o 

«d" '—I LO 

CO CM LO 



CM CO rH LO 

CO CM CO CO 

■xi- co cn cm 



c ■»- a> ■<- "r- 

<D O C V- i- 



> o 


OJ 


cu 


■ r- 


C <•) 




\- 




«3 i_ 




L_ 




s- cu 


m 


m 




CD Q_ 


> 


^ 


'r* 



m 3 . — ■*-> 

r- S- O IS) 

co mu -r- 



126 



A 



c\hd lo 
i— i ro cm 



n ro CMn ld 
LO C\J <— » CM CM 



CD. CM IT) 



cn co en 

CM i— I i— < 



r- ^ 



LO CO CM 
CM CO LD 



cn cn ro 



in r-t m co lo 

CO *d" ^- 0*J ro 



r*. cm en 

CM r- 1 t-i 



CM CM CM 

«— i «cr co 






^]- CO 
CO o 



r^ o cm 

-^- CM xj- 



O CD r-x. P-. CM 
<3- xj- CM «tf- «xj- 



O r— i-i 
CO <d- LO 



ITHD LD 
t— < xj- CO 



co lo en 

LO «3- ^3" 



i— I CO CO 

UD ID LO 



r-x. -— t lo en en 
co co r-x. en co 



o o 

CD LO 



ld o en 



1—1 CM O 



HininH r- 



«tf- en co 



t— i o en 

co en .— t 



U 



r 

0> 



st 



Q 



CD CO 
[-- LO 

CO CO 



CO O <xT 
CD CO --H 



CD cr> lo 



uo t— < r-x. 



CM LD CM r-. LO 



LO CO CO CD CM ■ 



O O <— • LO 
CM r-x CM LO 
ld en CO CM 



LO LO CM 



CO CM 
CM CM 


ro 

CM 


«3 


CM 


^3- 
CO 


en ld 


«xt- 


LO 


«d- 


LO 


lo en 
r»- «a- 


LO 


r-x 
CTi 


co 


•xl- 

co 


CM «— « 
r-x co 

LO CM 


CO 

LO 

en. 


O 
CO 
C7-. 


LO 

o 


LO 
CO 

o 



C\J ro LT) 



• M X 



x: 



u 



CO CO CM 



CM CO O CM CM 



cm en ■— i 





St 


w 


•a 


_ 


c 




93 


— 


9< 


u 


l- 




=: 


c 


1*) 


x 


^C 


01 


St 


SI 


e 


<f 


■a 



1,0 i-H 



OX * 



rHC\J CO 



CM CD CM 



«^- t— ( LO 

en ld lo 
ld •— i CO 



cm cn «d- o lo 

cm r» co ld en 

i— I CM 



t— I t-H CO 



i—i CM 



CO LO 

lo en 
«3- ro 



r-x, en lo 



r-» ld 

CM CM 
CM CM 



u 






£ M ^H 



.-H CO 


"-< 


CM 


o 


LD 


o o 


CM 


r-x. 


*3- 


LO CM 

en o 

CM 


cr> 


CO 


CO 
CO 


CO 

x-1- 


LO LO 


1 — 
CM 


en 


LO 
CTi 


r-H «sf 


CO 


LO 


CM 


•St 


LD LO 


*:t 


cn 


CO 


CD r-x 
en o 

CM CO 


CO 

o 

ro 


C J 

CO 


en 

LO 


CM 

r-x 

CO 


cn o 

CM LO 


CO 
CM 


CO 
CM 
CM 


cn 

CO 


CD LD 

r-x, lo 

CM CO 


LD 

CM 


CO 

r-. 

LO 


LO 

CO 


«3* 


r-» «xt 

LO CO 


CO 
CO 


«xT 

co 
r-x 


CO 
LO 
LO 



LD CD LO 



CO CO 
CO LO 



.— i r-» cr\ 



C\Jts CO 

r-x r-x r-x, 

CO i-H CM 



CO O 
LO co 



_Q O +-> ■*-> 

CtL LT) ■<- -r- 



, — 


CD 




C LO 


'11 


•r- CU 








u o 


m 


o -*-» 


CJ 


cn UO 



r— S- 



C -F- •«- 



O CC -r- -r- 



O i— 

cn O 



127 



._. r 



=C 



U 



A 



■^j- lo ro r-x. o OD 
CO co <d- csj csj ro 



CsJ ^J- LO C\J CO 



LTUD <3- fO LO 

Csj ■— < 



n ^tiDno co 
*-t o 



lo r-x lo co 



csj ^j- r- c\J i— i 

LDMO'Htt 



CsJ ^]- C\J CSJ 



o en csj co lo 
*tf- r-x Csj csj 



*j- CO LO 
CO Csj CSJ 







X 


LO «=f CO Csj P-. 


Csj 


c 

c 

a. 


«xj- co r-x. lo ro 


LO 


EJ 


CO CO xj- LO CO 


LO 



o co <d- co r-x. 
csj ld csj «xf «^- 



HiDmst r-x. 
LO i— l o lo CO 



OOstst i— i 

co lo lo csj in 



LD CO Csj CO Csj 

xj- LO CO Cn i— i 



co en co co lo 

■fl- com hlt) 



OU3CONN 

o o co cn o 



rH <CT LO 

VD LO N 



LO LT) tD LD 



r-. O CO CsJ Csj i— i 



o csj co r- 
«— i co r-x. ld 



■ r-x co co 



■ < — I CO LO LO I— ' 



m <Ti rv ld 



SI 



Q 
-a 






CsJ CO CO CO <— I o 



COO^Nst LO 



OJ 


< 


en csj lo r-- i— i 


en 


£ 


r-» en LD CO co 






,— 1 ,— 1 


1-1 




-a 










O CO CO O r-. 


CO 






r^'tOOO 






a. 


o o co en en 


vp 


- 


5 


■—I CSJ CsJ i—l t-H 


cn 



lo r-x lo o 



cm co <=l- en >— i 



cn lo ^r csj lo lo 



CO Csj 
CSJ CsJ 


•xt 
co 


CO 
CsJ 


CsJ 


«=f o 

CO Csj 


r-x 


r-x. 


LO 
CO 


r--. 

CsJ 


cn 

CSJ 


s 


CO 
LO 


CO 
Csj 


CO 


CsJ 


co r--. 

CSJ CSJ 


CO O 


CSJ 


cn 


•xt- 


CO CD 


xtj- 


o 


<xj- 


co 


CO 


CO 


LD 


LD 


LD 


,_, 


CO «d- 


ro <d- 
-xt LO 


CsJ 
CO 


CO 

LO 


LO 


r-x. r-. 

cn cn 


en 


«xj- 


l-x. 


o 

r- - 


LO 

r-- 


CSJ 

LD 


LT> 

O 


en 
r-» 


CO 


r^ 


cn cn 
r-- lo 


CO r-x. 

«3" CSJ 
LO O 


LD 

cn 


CO 


cn 

CO 
CO 


LO o 

r-x r-- 

CSJ LO 


LO 

<xt 


CO 

(T. 
LO 


OD 
CO 
LO 


a 

LO 

LO 


LD ■— 1 

CO «^j- 
csj ro 


CO 


LO 
LO 
CO 


o 
cn 

CM 


CsJ 

CO 


CsJ CO 
CTi O 

t-H LO 



CSJ CM CO CO 



u 



< 

T3 





S 


o 


r*i 


X 


js 


QJ 


M 


SJO 


C 


*f 


"3 




C 



Q -1. 



r-tONNH CO 
«3- CsJ CO O CO CO 

«— I LD i— I O 



«— * csj r-x -3- lo cn 
*j- en csj r- ^h «=r 

CO i— I LD 



r-n co csj en co 
^rocoo<t 

Csj Csj Csj Csj 



t-H CsJ 



co csj o r-- 
lo ^j- co csj 

«xt* CsJ 



LD <— I LD LO <xt CsJ 



co co «— i r-- 
csj ^ co cn 

ro co lo i— i 



73 



< 



csj o o r-x lo 

lo r-- co lo *3- 

csj co co r-x csj 

Csj i—l *zT i— i i— I 



o «— i cn co "3- lo 

cn lo ld t— i <— i cn 

cn co o co ro o 

xzf csj LO co CSJ «3- 



r-» CO O LD CO 



CO I^OCO 

r-» i-H -^ ^j- 

st LOLOLO 

CsJ CSJ •— • <"H 



ro csj CO lo .— i 



<— i Csj r-- LO <— i 



cn >3- co csj en co 

csi xt r~- o cti <— i 

•h/- <-i <a- r-x. co co 

CSJ CSJ i—l r— I i—l r— I 



o cn lo lo 



LO LO CO 
LO LO ro 
CsJ CsJ CSJ 



co r-. lo r-- csj 
CD r-x co LO LO 
csj lo r-x lo lo 



csj cn lo cn lo 

LO CO LO o «— I 
•—i CO >— i CO CD 



cn r-x. ld csj 

en co co o 

cn co 



LO LO CO 

Lfll/lsT 

LO LO CSJ 



o >n 
c cu E -— c 
o s- ^z c o 

Ul O U Oi ■■- 
C O •■- -M C 

<Eo;onD 



-a o r— 
C tn i — 
fO TD QJ CD 



CU QJ -b£ -Sj: 
■— ^Z r— "D 

■ — i/l *r— ru 

<<3> 





i— ro 




qj .a 


C1J 


3 3 


V 


ID (0 


S- 


r— 4-» 


1 


fO fO 


a: 


CJ CD 



128 



A 



CNJ CD "^l" "^ CO *-* 
•— < CNJ CO CO CNJ 



O Ol O U3 U3 IT) >h 
O ro O --i i-h 



CNJ i— I CNJ 



LD CO <d" LO « 

LT) rO CO ■— I I 



ro ro cnvo co lh cm ld 

i£lr- < CO -^" O rO CNJ LO 



e e^ ■ 



LO O 



LO CO LD LD ON 
ON LD tJ- CNI ON 



o -— < r-. r-» cnj co lo co 



LO LO CNJ 



udoc\jit)( 
en rH oj ro i 



CNJ CD CO CO CD CNI <-H 

o co en co co co O 



t 

i 
X 



«* r^ cnj 



HN CNJ 



O Cn *J* O LO CO 



O cnj-h n N LD 



i CNJ LD LO CO LO 



CO i-H 



I CO ON LO en 



co co en r-- co LO 



. Ln en o r*-. r-» >=f co 



Q 5 



0) 



o en 

co «-« 



^j" P-- CNJ t-h CO 
«d" LO LO LO LO 
•— • r-- CNJ CNJ CO 



r- I <3- 



IT) rH CNJ CO N rH CO 

CO LT) ■— I LO CNJ O LO 
CNJ <— < i—i LD LO -^J- CNJ 



7- 

y 

u 



-.1 
< 

-3 



r^ cm en 



u 





= 


o 


m 


X 


>0 


01 


;( 


tt 


e 



^ s 



t— i ro 
CNJ r-t 

ro .— t 



i .— i en i— i ro 
i «tf- ro cnj ld 

I f—t f—l LO 






— -"■ r ^~ 



lo ro co 



CO -=f LD 



ocn^ot en 

r-- LO cd ld un ro 

CNJ CO O CO LO LO 

cnj ld r-n t— < ro ro 



cnLDOMncoi^ co <— < 

CNJ LO CO CO CD LO O r~t ■^f 

LO ro CD P-- CNJ O ■—! CNJ CO 



o co *^r r-- cxi cni exj co 

rv ro lo lo cnj ro cm on 

coLor-.r^ocO'— i «* 

rH -— I >— t CNJ LO CNJ CNJ 



*d- en ro r-< en 
ld CO r-- «— i ro 
<3- ro ro ro 



LO CO ro <3" ^ CO CO 
ld ro LO r-> •— t cni on 

CNJ ^ CNJ CNJ 



i_ >> _JZ 3 -Ni O • 



r-H CD 



m s: o_ o; i 



<_) c_> eo 3i n s: uo 



29 



! 

H 


u 
s 

A 
N 
D 
S 



F 

C 

A 
S 
E 
S 



20 



15. 



10 



5 . 







AGE BREAKDOWN OF CIVIL DISTRICT CASES 
PENDING ON JUNE 30, 1979 



f 



^ 



m 




i 



h 



<;, 



m 



m 



L\ 




LESS THAN 99 DAYS 
91-188 DAYS 
181-365 DAYS 
I YEAR-2 YEARS 
GREATER THAN 2 YEARS 



EM 



1 






\ 



\ 



\I 



\ 



• 



5i 






h 



^ 



\ 



K 



\ 



l 



/ 



'/ 



/ 



/ 



'/ 



I 

I 

ON 







\ 



\ 



;1 



^ 



v 



VA 



'A 






GENERAL CIVIL DOMESTIC RELATIONS CIVIL MAGISTRATE 

A SUMMARY OF PENDING CIVIL DISTRICT CASES HIGHLIGHTS 
AGING PROBLEMS. THE GENERAL CIVIL CATEGORY HAS THE 
HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF OLD CASES; 2 1.9% OF CASES IN 
THIS CATEGORY ARE OVER TWO YEARS OLD, AS COMPARED TO 
17.5% FOR DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES, AND 5.7% FOR CIVIL 
MAGISTRATE CASES. 



I 30 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July I,1978-June30, 1979 







Deli 


nquent 


( 


3FFENSES 

Probation 
Violation 




Undisciplined 




CONDITIONS 
Dependent Neglected 


Grand 
Total 


Children 
Before 


District 1 


Capital 


Other 
Felony 


Misde- 
meanor 


Total 


Truancy 


Other 


Total 


Court For 
First Time 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 






1 



I) 





8 

l r ) 
8 
1 

23 
8 


3 
19 
18 

14 

1 

39 

18 


3 
27 
33 
23 

2 
62 
26 




12 
1 


7 





2 



f) 













2 












5 





2 
1 


9 



3 
39 
38 
24 

2 
83 
26 


3 
27 

19 
24 
1 
37 
10 


District Totals 


1 


63 


112 


176 


20 


2 





2 


5 


12 


215 


121 


District 2 


























Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 





I) 






12 
1 

29 
2 

12 


24 
6 

15 
4 

18 


36 
7 

44 
6 

30 


9 



5 








1 
2 


4 
2 
2 




4 
2 
2 
1 
2 


14 
1 
3 




40 
2 
5 
3 
4 


103 
12 
59 

10 
36 


61 
11 
30 
10 
17 


District Totals 





56 


67 


123 


14 


3 


8 


11 


L8 


54 


220 


129 


District 3 


























Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


I") 



1) 




3 
55 


73 


51 

70 

6 

56 


54 

125 

6 

129 


7 
23 

1 
10 


5 
7 
1 
2 


4 

15 



8 


9 
22 

1 
10 


in 

17 

1 
38 


16 

16 

5 

12 


96 

20 3 

14 

194 


90 
102 

13 
140 


District Totals 





131 


183 


314 


41 


15 


27 


42 


66 


49 


512 


345 


District 4 


























Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


1 







4 

9 

104 

1 


49 

10 

102 

68 


64 

19 

206 

69 











4 
1 




3 

1 
7 
6 


3 

5 

P. 
6 


5 

2 

16 

13 


6 

4 

30 

9 


68 

30 

260 
97 


68 

30 

151 

81 


District Totals 


1 


118 


229 


348 





5 


17 


22 


36 


49 


455 


330 


District 5 


























New Hanover 
Pender 






214 
24 


227 
26 


441 
50 


65 
5 


9 




23 
1 


32 
1 


46 
9 


98 

16 


682 

81 


304 
42 


District Totals 





238 


253 


491 


70 


9 


24 


33 


55 


114 


763 


346 


District 6 


























Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 








27 

56 
10 
14 


9 

56 
26 
14 


36 

112 
36 
28 




1 

12 

1 









22 

4 
4 




22 
4 

4 


1 

19 

3 
9 


5 
15 

10 

2 


42 
169 

66 
44 


42 

119 
39 

28, 


District Totals 





107 


ins 


212 


14 





30 


30 


32 


32 


320 


228 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 







85 
72 

105 


125 

128 

23 


210 

200 
128 


38 

27 

2 


11 
1 

11 


30 
20 

4 


41 
21 

16 


48 
28 
25 


60 
48 
13 


)87 

324 
183 


169 

173 

87 


District Totals 





262 


2 76 


538 


67 


23 


54 


77 


10 1 


111 


894 


429 


District 8 


























Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 







2 

39 
33 


14 

163 

31 


16 
202 

64 



20 
12 


1 
2 
4 


4 
22 
24 


5 
24 
28 


7 

9 

22 


7 

56 
50 


35 
311 
176 


19 
163 
109 


District Totals 





74 


208 


282 


32 


7 


50 


57 


38 


113 


522 


291 


District 9 


























Frankl in 
Granvil le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 









13 

38 

25 

3 

2 


27 
23 

3 
68 

5 


40 
61 
28 
71 
7 


5 
3 

2 





1 
6 
2 


6 
12 

1 
20 

3 


6 
12 

2 
26 

5 


12 
3 
1 

5 




10 

15 

8 

8 

5 


73 
94 
39 

112 
17 


52 
35 
38 
76 
17 


District Totals 





81 


126 


207 


10 


9 


42 


51 


21 


46 


335 


218 


District 10 



























Wake 



104 



275 



380 



66 



117 



117 



61 



42 



656 



358 



131 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July I,1978-June30, 1979 













OFFENSES 








CONDITIONS 




Children 
Before 






Deli 


nquent 




Probation 
Violation 




Undisciplined 




Dependent 


Neglected 


Grand 






Other 


Misde- 










Court For 




Capital 


Felony 


meanor 


Total 




Truancy 


Other 


Total 


* 




Total 


First Time 


District 11 


























Harnett 


1 


18 


49 


68 


15 


8 


22 


30 


25 


30 


168 


94 


Johnston 





26 


47 


73 


22 





10 


10 


47 


29 


181 


118 


Lee 





29 


137 


166 


16 


12 


3 


15 


52 


15 


264 


118 


District Totals 


1 


73 


233 


307 


53 


20 


35 


55 


124 


74 


613 


330 


District 12 


























Cumberland 





131 


252 


333 





30 


145 


175 


404 


138 


1,120 


1,029 


Hoke 





4 


23 


27 


2 





3 


3 


10 


8 


50 


46 


District Totals 





135 


275 


410 


2 


30 


148 


178 


414 


166 


1,170 


1,075 


District 13 


























Bladen 





1 


21 


22 





2 


7 


9 





1? 


43 


39 


Brunswick 


1 


8 


30 


39 


5 


19 


17 


36 


14 


46 


140 


121 


Col umbus 





31 


91 


122 


19 


7 


30 


37 


25 


61 


264 


130 


District Totals 


1 


40 


142 


183 


24 


28 


34 


82 


39 


119 


447 


290 


District 14 


























Durham 





100 


L2] 


221 


107 


7 


91 


98 


136 


46 


60S 


239 



Alamance 




District 


15B 



Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 



16 





2 35 



35 



30 



25 
32 

57 



46 



25 
69 

94 



14 



1 

11 

12 



26 



4 
14 

18 



40 



5 
25 

30 



29 



9 
19 

28 



27 



25 

3 3 



142 



47 
142 

1S9 



136 



31 

113 

149 



District 16 



Robeson 





161 


236 


397 


12 


23 


86 


113 


71 


68 


561 


301 


Scotland 


1 


28 


56 


85 


6 


8 


29 


37 


16 


18 


162 


115 


District Totals 


1 


189 


292 


482 


18 


36 


114 


L50 


87 


86 


823 


416 


District 17 



























Caswel 1 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 

District Totals 

District 18 
Guil ford 

District 19A 



4 
67 

13 
45 

128 



207 



5 

143 
21 
43 

212 



527 



9 
212 

33 
88 

342 



734 




9 

5 



14 



136 




18 

5 
18 

4! 



97 



29 


47 


8 


13 


22 


40 


67 


108 



218 



313 



5 

12 
7 
7 

31 



196 



12 

42 

2 

38 

94 



141 



34 

332 

(•0 

173 

589 



1,522 



33 

1 30 
29 

106 

298 



671 



Cabarrus 


2 


19 


90 


111 


30 


1 


16 


17 


18 


27 


203 


95 


Rowan 





33 


14 7 


180 


31 


29 


7 


36 


84 


94 


415 


200 


District Totals 


2 


52 


237 


291 


51 


30 


23 


53 


102 


121 


618 


295 


District 19B 


























Montgomery 





4 


24 


28 


4 


1 


6 


7 


2 





41 


34 


Randolph 


1 


17 


33 


53 


34 


6 


44 


50 


17 


29 


183 


155 


District Totals 


1 


21 


59 


81 


38 


7 


50 


3 7 


19 


29 


224 


189 


District 20 


























Anson 





31 


52 


86 


2 














9 


97 


27 


Moore 





83 


75 


160 


10 





11 


11 


5 


41 


327 


64 


Richmond 


1 


34 


72 


107 


3 





7 


7 


38 


20 


175 


97 


Stanly 





3 


364 


367 


13 





7 


7 


18 


11 


416 


85 


Union 


1) 


33 


185 


218 


41 


2 


19 


21 


20 


58 


358 


128 



District Totals 



189 



748, 



9 38 



69 



41 



46 



139 



1,273 



401 



132 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredel 1 

District Totals 
District 23 



Alleghany 


Ashe 




Wilkes 




Yadkin 




District 


Totals 


District 


24 


Avery 




Madison 




Mitchell 




Watauga 




Yancey 




District 


Total s 


District 


25 



Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 

District 28 
Buncombe 

District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 

District Totals 

District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swa i n 

District Totals 
STATE TOTALS 











July 1,1978-June 


30, 


1979 




















OFFENSES 










CONDITIONS 




Children 
Before 




Deli 


nquent 




Probation 
Violation 




Undisciplined 




Dependent 


Neglected 


Grand 




Other 


Misde- 












Court For 


Capital 


Felony 


meanor 


Tot a 




Trgancj 




Other 


Total 






Total 


First Time 





200 


287 


487 


76 


21 




154 


175 


53 


74 


865 


451 





16 


16 


32 










6 


6 


5 


7 


50 


38 


4 


55 


92 


151 


29 


2 




79 


81 


129 


108 


498 


229 





11 


19 


30 





1 




21 


22 


1 


18 


71 


31 





5 


152 


157 


4 


5 




58 


63 


25 


37 


286 


169 







87 






7 





5 





20 





3 



35 






20 


2 














6 









26 



40 
70 
97 



207 



279 



370 






7 


2 


7 


50 


70 


38 


41 



QO 



30 



62 



230 



125 



5 


25 


3 


5 


6 


6 


5 


21 


1 


1 



58 



102 

98 168 
70 167 



437 



1 


765 


673 


1,439 


3 


156 


406 


565 







8 
23 


242 
54 


250 
77 





31 


296 


327 


2 


112 


208 


322 










43 
8 
4 

18 
4 


56 
32 
5 
50 
13 


99 

40 

9 

68 

17 





77 


156 


233 











3 
2 

15 
8 




1 

7 

19 

10 

8 

2 


4 

2 

7 

34 

18 
8 
2 





28 


47 


75 


26 


4,143 


7,469 


11,638 



33 





6 

91 

22 

119 



■11 
28 
23 

92 



43 



10 
4 

14 



13 



36 
4 


18 
4 

62 



1,308 



164 



172 



160 



170 



1 
3 
3 
3 

10 



9 
5 

2 


16 



32 

21 
11 

64 



45 



20 
2 

22 



38 



18 

19 

1 

1 

7 

46 



2 


3 


3 


6 


11 


14 


5 


8 



21 



24 



1% 



142 



155 



21 
9 

33 



330 



31 



10 


19 





5 


2 


2 


10 


12 


2 


2 



40 



82 


114 


61 


82 


52 


63 



259 



148 



200 



44 

11 

55 



368 



33 


51 


14 


33 


4 


5 


8 


9 


4 


11 


63 


109 


5 


5 








1 


1 


35 


39 


21 


22 


2 


3 


18 


18 






5 


4 


16 


47 


104 


35 


63 



4 
2 
1 
28 
1 

36 



38 
31 
20 

89 



44 



13 
9 

22 



37 



13 

6 



19 

24 

62 



188 



19 
2 
1 
6 
3 

31 



46 
23 
28 

97 



97 



33 
13 

46 



4(1 



35 
24 
1 
19 
11 

90 



4 


13 
6 
3 
4 



905 



15 

39 

326 

169 

549 



73 
14 
10 
67 
7 

1/1 



■14 1 
332 
301 

974 



1,811 



818 



350 
114 

464 



780 



234 
107 

15 
133 

67 

556 



467 



13 

22 

116 

62 

213 



25 

15 

5 

60 
6 

111 



150 
144 
170 

464 



678 



410 



150 
64 

214 



358 



101 
78 
L4 
87 
41 

321 



82 



679 2,620 3,299 



11 30 
2,393 2,569 21,207 



17 


17 


3 


3 


8 


8 


89 


89 


46 


46 


16 


16 


25 


25 


04 


204 


07 


11,175 



133 



ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS FOR JUVENILE CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July I,1978-June30, 1979 



Delinquency Hearings 



Undisciplined Hearings 



District 1 



Retained Dismissed Total Retained Dismissed Total 



Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 



36 
31 
6 
2 
53 
13 


District Totals 


141 


District 2 




Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 


38 
3 

37 
4 

20 


District Totals 


102 


District 3 




Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


44 

1 i 

11 

150 


District Totals 


308 


District 4 




Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 




4 

153 

71 


District Totals 


228 


District 5 




New Hanover 
Pender 


489 
50 


District Totals 


539 


District 6 




Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


30 

/!) 

20 

11 


District Totals 


131 


District 7 




Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wil son 


189 

188 
115 


District Totals 


492 


District 8 




Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 


21 
113 
169 


District Totals 


303 


District 9 




Frankl in 
Granvil le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 


21 
22 
33 
58 

1 


District Totals 


135 


District 10 





3 


3 





36 


5 


36 


21 


27 





2 


12 


65 


8 


21 



44 



1% 



17 
5 

22 



99 



Wake 



413 



41 



41 



19! J 



32 


70 


3 


6 


19 


56 


2 


6 


8 


28 



166 



464 



6 


6 


15 


19 


40 


193 


27 


98 



316 



506 
55 

561 



591 



176 



454 



16 


60 


4 


77 


180 


18 


14 


25 





49 


199 


22 



44 



31 
1 

J 2 



6 


36 





53 


123 


2 


69 


89 


1 


7 


18 





35 


266 


3 


52 


241 


24 


29 


217 


16 


18 


133 


17 



57 



9 


30 


2 


61 


174 


8 


63 


232 


20 


33 


4 36 


30 


6 


27 


5 


5 


27 


5 


8 


41 


2 


15 


73 


11 


7 


8 


5 



28 



47 



14 



36 



37 



23 



41 



4 

15 
4 

34 



16 



9 


11 


1 


1 


2 


2 


1 


1 


1 


2 



17 



3 


7 


15 


33 


2 


2 


16 


38 



1 

5 

5 
2 

13 



32 
1 

33 









22 


24 


4 


5 


11 


11 



40 



17 


41 


6 


22 





17 



4 


6 


10 


18 


27 


47 



71 



13 
6 

26 
9 

62 



6 1 



Dependency Hearings 
Retained Dismissed Tol 



13 





13 



7 

14 

1 

35 

57 





1 

10 

24 

35 



4 6 



54 





21 

1 

7 

29 



30 
34 
20 



2 

4 

70 

76 



2 
5 

4 


11 



47 



11 



25 



1 

15 

3 

2 

21 



27 





N< 


gleet 


Hearit 


gs 




Total 


al 


Retained 


Dismissed 


Total 


Hearings 


















3 


















36 





4 









4 


42 





1 









1 


28 


















2 


6 


6 




1 




7 


78 


















21 



24 



82 



41 



46 
9 

55 



1 

36 

4 
9 

50 



9 3 



103 



6 
6 


6 


18 



50 



11 



4 


17 


23 


16 


1 


1 





4 


6 


6 


5 


1 








2 


1 








2 


2 



37 



57 



97 

16 

113 



2 

12 
5 
2 

21 



4 


34 


51 


4 


38 


38 


1 


21 


28 



117 



146 



3 
9 

6 
9 

35 



44 



24 






7 


11 


2 


8 


22 


47 


8 





1 


1 


1 


7 


52 


29 


10 



21 



1 


1 





1 


1 


2 





4 





10 


40 


1 


4 


28 


17 


17 



23 



3 
6 

13 

2 

24 



5 


13 



6^ 



12 



61 



109 



16 

114 



5 
18 
18 

4 

45 



130 



211 



44 



51 



210 



44 


142 


4 


12 


6 


70 


3 


10 


4 


34 



268 



13 


87 


55 


290 


2 


30 


39 


328 



735 



1 


9 


4 


30 


41 


249 


34 


162 



450 



682 
81 

76 3 



42 
201 
116 

42 

401 



59 


375 


43 


320 


28 


199 



894 






2 


8 


4 


12 


50 


3 


7 


20 


2 3 


43 


242 


24 


94 


118 


38 


156 


529 



821 



10 


51 


4 


50 


12 


59 


7 


112 


11 


28 



300 



618 



134 



ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS FOR JUVENILE CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1978-June 30, 1979 





Delinquency Hea 
Retained Dismissed 


rings 
Total 


Undisciplined Hearings 
Retained Dismissed Total 


Dependi 
Retained Di 


;ncy Hearings 
ismissed Total 


Neglect Hearings 


Total 


District 11 


Retained 


1) 


ismissed 


Total 


Hearings 


Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


145 
61 
88 


91 

118 
25 


236 
179 

113 


32 
7 

26 




34 
35 

13 


66 
42 
39 


25 

46 

129 




19 
79 

14 


44 

125 
143 


119 

30 
34 




34 

42 

4 


153 
72 
38 


499 
418 
333 


District Totals 


294 


234 


528 


65 




82 


147 


200 




112 


312 


183 




80 


263 


1,250 


District 12 


































Cumberland 
Hoke 


325 
21 


89 
4 


414 
25 


114 





40 
2 


154 
2 


322 
9 




13 



335 
9 


10? 
6 




6 

1 


108 
7 


1,011 
43 


District Totals 


346 


93 


439 


114 




42 


156 


331 




13 


344 


108 




7 


115 


1,054 


District 13 


































Bladen 

Brunswick 
Columbus 


22 
8 

118 


17 
11 
17 


39 

19 

135 


10 
7 

10 




7 

4 
13 


17 

11 
23 


1 

3 
13 






3 
5 


1 

6 

18 


21 
2 

30 




6 
25 
15 


27 

27 
45 


84 

63 

221 


District Totals 


148 


45 


193 


27 




24 


51 


17 




8 


25 


53 




46 


99 


368 



District 


14 


Durham 




District 


15A 


Alamance 




District 


15B 



Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 
District 16 



Caswel 1 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 

District Totals 

District 18 
Guilford 

District 19A 



165 



65 



32 
97 

129 



121 



12 



11 

41 

52 



286 



77 



43 
138 

181 



40 



37 



5 
23 

28 



47 



10 
18 



87 



39 



13 
33 

46 



116 



?? 



5 

31 

36 



5 
9 

14 



118 



26 



10 
40 

50 



29 



33 



5 
24 

29 



4 

145 

23 

59 

231 



578 



7 
59 

7 
31 

104 



306 



11 

204 
30 
90 

335 



10 
33 
13 
23 

79 



148 



14 


24 


15 


48 


3 


16 


11 


34 



43 



203 



122 



351 



3 

10 

5 

10 

28 



163 



11 



35 



39 



198 



70 



90 



2 

14 

16 



3 


6 


7 


18 


2 


12 


41 


23 


4 


9 


1 


3 


2 


1? 


21 


13 



57 



6r, 



34 



37 



7 
38 

45 



127 



W>b 



179 



73 
249 

322 



Robeson 


293 


41 


334 


54 


1 


55 


49 


7 


56 


46 


11 


57 


502 


Scotland 


90 


8 


98 


29 


9 


38 


30 


2 


32 


22 


1 


23 


191 


District Totals 


38 3 


49 


432 


83 


10 


93 


79 


9 


88 


68 


12 


80 


693 


District 17 





























25 


66 


64 


328 


4 


59 


34 


170 



623 



156 1,589 



Cabarrus 


104 


9 


113 


16 


3 


19 


19 


2 


21 


25 


3 


28 


181 


Rowan 


133 


55 


188 


49 


30 


79 


117 


52 


169 


193 


41 


234 


670 


District Totals 


237 


64 


301 


65 


33 


98 


136 


54 


190 


218 


44 


262 


851 


District 19B 




























Montgomery 


72 


11 


83 


15 


6 


21 





2 


2 


2 


2 


4 


110 


Randolph 


69 


11 


80 


47 


25 


72 


13 


8 


21 


12 


14 


26 


199 


District Totals 


141 


22 


163 


62 


31 


93 


13 


10 


23 


14 


16 


30 


309 


District 20 




























Anson 


56 


11 


67 




















5 


2 


7 


74 


Moore 


136 


6 


142 


2 


6 


8 


9 


1 


10 


4 


2 


6 


166 


Richmond 


100 


68 


168 


5 


18 


23 


35 


5 


40 


39 


2 


41 


272 


Stanly 


375 


14 


389 


2 


5 


7 


15 


1 


16 


16 


1 


17 


429 


Union 


179 


79 


258 


16 


11 


27 


27 


22 


49 


146 


41 


187 


521 



District Totals 



846 



178 1,024 



25 



40 



65 



29 



115 



2 1 



258 1,462 



135 



ADJUDICATORY HEARINGS FOR JUVENILE CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July I,1978-June30, 1979 





Del 


nquency Hearings 


Undiscip 
Retained D 


lined Hear 
smissed 


ings 
Total 


Dependency Hear 


ngs 


Neglect llearii 


gs 


Total 


District 21 


Retained Dismissed 


Total 


Retained Dismissed 


Total 


Retained 


Dismissed 


Total 


Hearings 


Forsyth 


266 


91 


357 


2.6 


76 


161 


47 


4 


51 


45 


13 


53 


627 


District 22 




























Alexander 


13 


15 


28 


3 


2 


5 


3 





3 


6 


2 


8 


44 


Davidson 


28 1 


79 


362 


69 


51 


120 


218 


66 


284 


263 


36 


299 


1,065 


Davie 


34 


27 


61 


18 


15 


33 


1 





1 


39 


8 


47 


142 


Iredel 1 


Id/ 


24 


131 


23 


11 


34 


8 


4 


12 


46 


5 


51 


228 


District Totals 


437 


145 


582 


113 


79 


192 


230 


70 


300 


354 


51 


405 


1,479 


District 23 




























Al leghany 


7 





7 


2 


1 


3 











5 





5 


15 


Ashe 


4 


13 


17 


6 


7 


13 


4 


1 


5 


4 





4 


39 


Wilkes 


172 


11 


183 


17 


1 


18 


32 





32 


106 


10 


116 


349 


Yadkin 


50 


13 


63 


8 





8 


26 


9 


35 


51 


12 


63 


169 


District Totals 


233 


37 


270 


33 


9 


42 


62 


10 


72 


166 


22 


188 


572 


District 24 




























Avery 


14 


13 


27 


6 


3 


9 


4 





4 


41 


4 


45 


85 


Madison 


16 


4 


20 


11 


4 


16 


5 


6 


11 


7 


2 


9 


55 


Mitchell 


11 


69 


80 


4 


27 


31 


15 


7 


22 


15 


15 


30 


16.3 


Watauga 


4 


1 


5 


3 


4 


7 


6 


2 


8 











20 


Yancey 


49 


8 


57 


25 


5 


30 


31 


1 


32 


27 


2 


29 


148 


District Totals 


94 


90 


189 


49 


43 


92 


61 


16 


77 


90 


23 


113 


471 


District 25 




























Burke 


146 


34 


180 


119 


50 


169 


74 


37 


111 


1/4 


16 


190 


650 


Caldwell 


208 


93 


301 


104 


5] 


155 


54 


19 


73 


29 


15 


44 


57 3 


Catawba 


225 


38 


263 


39 


20 


59 


16 


4 


20 


27 


5 


32 


374 



District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 



District 28 
Buncombe 



District 29 



579 



712 



264 



165 



744 



364 1,076 



111 



375 



262 



49 



105 



121 



51 



37 



383 



100 



142 



144 



102 



55 



60 



25 



204 



12/ 



62 



230 



10 



68 



140 



208 



78 



210 



15 



19 



36 



14 



14 



266 



13 



17 



1,597 



62 1,365 



592 



Cleveland 


159 


68 


227 


29 


10 


39 


13 





13 


31 


3 


34 


313 


Lincoln 


53 


16 


69 


6 


4 


10 


6 


1 


7 


11 


1 


12 


98 


istrict Totals 


2 1 2 


84 


296 


35 


14 


49 


10 


1 


20 


42 


4 


46 


411 



532 



Henderson 


116 


21 


136 


35 


15 


50 


11 


1 


12 


26 


4 


30 


228 


McDowell 


38 


2 


40 


30 


4 


34 


1 





1 


21 





21 


96 


Polk 


5 


7 


12 


6 





6 











15 





15 


33 


Rutherford 


59 


1/ 


/6 


11 


2 


13 


36 


1 


37 


22 





22 


148 


Transylvania 


11 


8 


19 


8 


2 


10 


13 


4 


17 


2 


2 


4 


50 


District Totals 


220, 


55 


283 


90 


23 


113 


61 


6 


67 


86 


6 


92 


656 


District 30 




























Cherokee 


1 


3 


4 


1 


4 


5 


3 


1 


4 


3 





3 


16 


Clay 





2 


2 





1 


1 





1 


1 











4 


Graham 


1 


6 


7 





1 


1 














o 





8 


Haywood 


/ 


21 


28 


3 


30 


33 





1 


1 


1 


3 


4 


66 


Jackson 


2 


16 


17 


1 


13 


14 











2 


3 


5 


36 


Macon 


1 


5 


6 


1 


2 


3 





1 


1 


2 


1 


3 


13 


Swain 


2 





2 


8 


10 


18 


1 





1 





4 


4 


3 6 


District Totals 


14 


52 


66 


14 


61 


75 


4 


4 


8 


8 


11 


19 


168 


STATE TOTALS 


9,462 


3,447 


12,909 


1,939 


1,507 


3,446 


2,427 


t..iii 


3,057 


2,856 


786 


3,642 


23,054 



136 



CASELOAD SUMMARIES FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1978-June30, 1979 



Motor Vehicle Cases 



Non-Motor Vehicle Cases 



District 1 


Pending 

7/1/78 


1 iled 


Total 

Caseload 


Disposed 


% Disposed 
to Caseload 


Pending 
6/30/79 


Pending 

7/1/78 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Disposed 
to Caseload 


Pending 
6/30/79 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 




123 

88 

386 

318 

193 
262 

109 


739 
1,590 
2,289 
3,739 
1,949 
3,388 
1,257 


862 
1,678 
2,675 
4,057 
2,142 
3,650 
1,366 


789 
1,556 
2,449 
3,496 
1,910 
3,421 
1,246 


91.5 
92.7 
91.5 
86.1 
89.1 
93.7 
91.2 


73 
122 

226 
561 
232 
229 

120 


16 

31 
143 
96 
30 
99 
31 


167 
634 

468 
842 
315 
1,487 
318 


183 
665 
606 
938 

345 

1,586 

349 


174 
604 
546 
705 

338 

1,480 

288 


95.0 
90.8 
90.0 
75.1 
97.9 
93.3 
82.5 


9 

61 

60 

233 

7 

106 

61 


District Totals 


1 


,479 


14,951 


16,430 


14,867 


90.4 


1,563 


446 


4,226 


4,672 


4,135 


88.5 


537 


District 2 




























Beaufort 

'Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 




411 
45 

348 
24 
68 


6,904 
434 

3,461 
467 

1,432 


7,315 
479 

3,809 
491 

1,500 


6,840 
457 

3,590 
460 

1,449 


93.5 
95.4 
94.2 
93.6 
96.6 


475 

22 

219 

31 
51 


120 

10 

120 

8 

29 


2,468 
362 

1,580 
197 
696 


2,588 

372 

1,700 

205 

725 


2,430 
345 

1,595 
181 
702 


93.8 
92.7 
93.8 
88.2 
96.8 


158 
27 

105 
24 
23 


District Totals 




896 


12,698 


13,594 


12,796 


94.1 


798 


287 


5,303 


5,590 


5,253 


93.9 


337 


District 3 




























Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


1 


990 

960 

89 

,291 


6,292 
12,962 

1,065 
11,317 


7 ,282 
13,922 

1,154 
12,608 


6,122 
12,728 

1,101 
11,375 


84.0 
91.4 
95.4 
90.2 


1,160 

1,194 

53 

1,233 


666 

339 

32 

964 


3,374 

4,256 

439 

7,092 


4,040 

4,595 

471 

8,056 


3,106 

4,164 

460 

6,880 


76.8 
90.6 
97.6 
85.4 


934 
431 

11 
1,176 


District Totals 


3 


,330 


31,636 


34,966 


31,326 


89.5 


3,640 


2,001 


15,161 


17,162 


14,610 


85.1 


2,552 


District 4 




























Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


1 
1 


629 
188 

,821 
,427 


6,185 

1,534 

16,813 

10,752 


6,814 

1,722 

18,634 

12,179 


6,076 

1,572 

16,482 

10,852 


89.1 
91.2 
88.4 
89.1 


738 

150 
2,152 
1,327 


303 
48 

51/ 


2,301 

565 

7,711 

2,772 


2,604 

613 
8,515 
3,319 


2,143 

582 

7,558 

2,579 


82.2 
94.9 
88.7 
77.7 


461 

31 

957 

740 


District Totals 


4 


,065 


35,284 


39,349 


34,982 


88.9 


4,367 


1,702 


13,349 


15,051 


12,862 


85.4 


2,189 


District 5 




























New Hanover 
Pender 


1 


,182 
499 


13,681 
3,717 


14,863 
4,216 


13,444 
3,706 


90.4 
87.9 


1,419 
510 


959 
139 


9,054 
1,055 


10,013 
1,194 


8,609 
1,048 


85.9 

87.7 


1,404 
146 


District Totals 


1 


,681 


17,398 


19,079 


17,150 


89.8 


1,929 


1,098 


10,109 


11,207 


9,657 


86.1 


1,550 


District 6 




























Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 




324 
872 
519 

428 


3,699 

11,660 

4,602 

6,234 


4,023 

12,532 

5,121 

6,662 


3,690 

11,218 

4,497 

6,225 


91.7 
89.5 
87.8 
93.4 


333 

1,314 

624 

437 


84 

297 
157 
27 


820 
3,512 
1,318 

624 


904 
3,809 
1,475 

651 


751 
3,335 
1,311 

619 


83.0 
87.5 
88.8 
95.0 


153 
474 

1 04 
32 


District Totals 


2 


,143 


26,195 


28,338 


25,630 


90.4 


2,708 


565 


6,274 


6,839 


6,016 


87.9 


823 


District 7 




























Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 




524 
926 
878 


5,136 
8,556 
9,061 


5,660 
9,482 
9,939 


5,197 
8,479 
8,696 


91.8 
89.4 
87.4 


463 
1,003 
1,243 


607 
484 

460 


4,778 
4,863 
4,472 


5,385 
5,347 
4,932 


4,876 
4,767 
4,112 


90.5 
89.1 
83.3 


509 

',88 
820 


District Totals 


2 


,328 


22,753 


25,081 


22,372 


89.1 


2,709 


1,551 


14,113 


15,664 


13,755 


87.8 


1,909 


District 8 




























Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 


1 


105 
635 

,345 


1,652 

9,112 

13,681 


1,757 

9,747 

15,026 


1,600 

9,063 

13,599 


91.0 
92.9 
90.5 


157 

684 

1,427 


56 
334 
629 


794 
4,877 
6,220 


850 
5,211 
6,849 


793 
4,894 
6,098 


93.2 
93.9 
89.0 


57 
317 
751 


District Totals 


2 


,085 


24,445 


26,530 


24,262 


91.4 


2,268 


1,019 


11,891 


12,910 


11,785 


91.2 


1,125 


District 9 




























Frankl in 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 




265 
345 
359 
359 
270 


4,151 
4,352 
3,393 
4,605 
2,556 


4,416 
4,697 
3,752 
4,964 
2,826 


4,019 
4,273 
3.381 
4,452 
2,340 


91.0 
90.9 
90.1 
89.6 
82.8 


397 
424 

i/1 
512 
486 


85 

96 

159 

?(,? 
185 


1,497 
1,719 
1,669 
2,540 
929 


1,582 
1,815 
1,828 
2,802 
1,114 


1,370 
1,707 
1,625 
2,550 
885 


86.5 
94.0 
88.8 
91.0 
79.4 


212 
108 
203 
252 

229 


District Totals 


1 


,598 


19,057 


20,655 


18,465 


89.3 


2,190 


787 


8,354 


9,141 


8,137 


89.0 


1,004 


District 10 





























Wake 



5,580 47,911 53,491 46,789 



87.4 



6,702 



3,366 24,778 28,144 23,775 



84.4 



4,369 



137 



CASELOAD SUMMARIES FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July I, I978-June30, 1979 



Motor Vehicle Cases 



Non-Motor Vehicle Cases 



District 11 


Pending 

7/1/78 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Disposed 
to Caseload 


Pending 
6/30/79 


Pending 

7/1/78 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Disposed 
to Caseload 


Pending 
6/30/79 


Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


611 

1,381 

328 


7,958 

13,864 

4,126 


8,569 

15,245 

4,454 


7,763 

13,471 

3,968 


90.5 
88.3 
89.0 


806 
1,774 

486 


343 
433 
338 


3,251 
3,375 
3,905 


3,594 

3,808 
4,243 


3,203 
3,188 
3,913 


89.1 
83.7 
92.2 


391 
620 
330 


District Totals 


2,320 


25,948 


28,268 


25,202 


89.1 


3,066 


1,114 


10,531 


11,645 


10,304 


88.4 


1,341 


District 12 


























Cumberland 
Hoke 


4,700 
461 


38,205 
3,635 


42,905 
4,096 


38,690 
3,735 


90.1 
91.1 


4,215 
361 


2,456 

110 


22,491 
1,477 


24,947 

1,587 


22,418 
1,250 


89.8 
78.7 


2,529 
337 


District Totals 


5,161 


41,840 


47,001 


42,425 


90.2 


4,576 


2,566 


23,968 


26,534 


23,668 


89.1 


2,866 


District 13 


























Bladen 
Brunswick 
Col umbus 


915 

435 
1,039 


6,795 

4,600 
9,503 


7,710 

5,035 

10,542 


6,831 
4,553 
9,338 


88.5 
90.4 
88.5 


879 

482 

1,204 


304 
153 

557 


2,379 
1,929 
3,750 


2,683 
2,082 
4,307 


2,413 
1,809 
3,767 


89.9 
86.8 
87.4 


270 
273 
540 


District Totals 


2,389 


20,898 


23,287 


20,722 


88.9 


2,565 


1,014 


8,058 


9,072 


7,989 


88.0 


1,083 


District 14 


























Durham 


2,388 


18,741 


21,129 


18,483 


87.4 


2,646 


1,427 


12,174 


13,601 


11,720 


86.1 


1,881 


District 15A 


























Alamance 


1,084 


11,716 


12,800 


11,694 


91.3 


1,106 


403 


4,702 


5,105 


4,616 


90.4 


489 


District 15B 


























Chatham 
Orange 


292 
1,607 


5,412 
10,240 


5,704 
11,847 


5,338 
10,521 


93.5 
88.8 


366 
1,326 


72 

480 


1,224 
3,243 


1,296 
3,723 


1,186 
3,379 


91.5 
90.7 


110 
344 


District Totals 


1,899 


15,652 


17,551 


15,859 


90.3 


1,692 


552 


4,467 


5,019 


4,565 


90.9 


454 


District 16 


























Robeson 
Scotland 


1,650 
523 


17,532 
4,948 


19,182 
5,471 


17,405 
5,161 


90.7 
94.3 


1,777 
310 


895 
479 


8,787 
3,074 


9,682 
3,553 


8,737 
2,894 


90.2 
81.4 


945 

659 


District Totals 


2,173 


22,480 


24,653 


22,566 


91.5 


2,087 


1,374 


11,861 


13,235 


11,631 


87.8 


1,604 


District 17 


























Caswel 1 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 


308 

1,163 

362 

880 


2,164 
9,601 
3,541 
6,200 


2,472 

10,764 

3,903 

7,080 


2,211 
9,607 
3,537 
6,449 


89.4 
89.2 
90.6 
91.0 


261 

1,157 

366 

631 


51 

565 

83 

518 


769 
5,052 
1,038 
3,298 


820 
5,617 
1,121 
3,816 


697 
5,014 
1,003 
3,311 


85.0 
89.2 
89.4 
86.7 


123 
603 
118 

505 


District Totals 


2,713 


21,506 


24,219 


21,804 


90.0 


2,415 


1,217 


10,157 


11,374 


10,025 


88.1 


1,349 


District 18 


























Guilford 


6,167 


42,710 


48,877 


41,995 


85.9 


6,882 


4,644 


19,461 


24,105 


19,618 


81.3 


4,487 


District 19A 


























Cabarrus 
Rowan 


1,089 
975 


12,624 
10,889 


13,713 
11,864 


12,238 
10,857 


89.2 
91.5 


1,475 
1,007 


391 
389 


3,765 

4,446 


4,156 
4,835 


3,872 
4,477 


93.1 
92.5 


284 
358 


District Totals 


2,064 


23,513 


25,577 


23,095 


90.2 


2,482 


780 


8,211 


8,991 


8,349 


92.8 


642 


District 19B 


























Montgomery 
Randolph 


401 
845 


4,420 
9,086 


4,821 
9,931 


4,278 
9,025 


88.7 
90.8 


543 

906 


no 

287 


1,876 
2,865 


2,186 
3,152 


1,763 
2,913 


80.6 
92.4 


43 3 
239 


District Totals 


1,246 


13,506 


14,752 


13,303 


90.1 


1,449 


597 


4,741 


5,338 


4,676 


87.5 


662 


District 20 


























Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


417 
502 
632 
746 
662 


4,429 
6,301 
5,877 
6,644 
7,089 


4,846 
6,803 
6,509 
7,390 
7,751 


4,529 
6,357 
5,703 
6,659 
7,179 


93.4 
93.4 
87.6 
90.1 
92.6 


317 
446 
806 
731 
572 


136 
279 
370 

431 
285 


1,427 
3,509 
3,037 
2,184 
3,200 


1,563 
3,788 
3,407 
2,615 
3,485 


1,456 
3,422 
2,965 
2,033 
3,159 


93.1 
90.3 
87.0 
77.7 
90.6 


107 

443 
582 

336 


District Totals 


2,959 


30,340 


33,299 


30,427 


91.3 


2,872 


1,501 


13,357 


14,858 


13,035 


87.7 


1,823 



138 



CASELOAD SUMMARIES FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July I, 1978-June30, 1979 



Motor Vehicle Cases 



Non-Motor Vehicle Cases 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredel 1 



Pending 

7/1/78 



3,696 



U 



178 

,188 
391 
916 



District Totals 2,673 



Total % Disposed Pending 

Filed Caseload Disposed to Caseload 6/30/79 



38,178 41,874 37,358 



1,888 
13,298 

4,821 
10,254 



2,066 
14,486 

5,212 
11,170 



30,261 32,934 



1,927 
13,065 

4,573 
10,131 

29,696 



3.2 



93.2 
90.1 
87.7 
90.6 

90.1 



4,516 



139 
1,421 

639 
1,039 

3,238 



Pending 

7/1/78 



Total % Disposed Pending 

Filed Caseload Disposed to Caseload 6/30/79 



2,113 13,563 15,676 13,628 



86.9 



99 


1,002 


1,101 


1,022 


92.8 


689 


5,338 


6,027 


5,160 


85.6 


64 


970 


1,034 


852 


82.3 


356 


4,759 


5,115 


4,576 


89.4 



1,208 12,069 13,277 11,610 



87.4 



2,048 



79 
867 

18? 
539 

1,667 



District 23 



Al leghany 


40 


769 


809 


713 


88.1 


96 


17 


295 


312 


280 


89.7 


32 


Ashe 


141 


1,786 


1,927 


1,781 


92.4 


146 


68 


931 


999 


942 


94.2 


57 


Wilkes 


831 


6,528 


7,359 


6,697 


91.0 


662 


330 


2,984 


3,314 


2,927 


88.3 


387 


Yadkin 


172 


2,902 


3,074 


2,831 


92.0 


243 


82 


1,209 


1,291 


1,213 


93.9 


78 


District Totals 


1,184 


11,985 


13,169 


12,022 


91.2 


1,147 


497 


5,419 


5,916 


5,362 


90.6 


554 


District 24 


























Avery 


122 


1,817 


1,939 


1,651 


85.1 


288 


111 


589 


700 


599 


85.5 


101 


Madison 


281 


2,500 


2,781 


2,536 


91.1 


245 


67 


356 


42 3 


3 36 


79.4 


87 


Mitchell 


103 


1,296 


1,399 


1,145 


81.8 


254 


40 


335 


375 


322 


85.8 


53 


Watauga 


4 79 


4,092 


4,571 


4,120 


90.1 


451 


206 


1,108 


1,314 


947 


72.0 


367 


Yancey 


113 


1,543 


1,656 


1,467 


88.5 


189 


54 


552 


606 


548 


90.4 


58 


District Totals 


1,098 


11,248 


12,346 


10,919 


88.4 


1,427 


478 


2,940 


3,418 


2,752 


80.5 


666 


District 25 



























Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 



965 

641 

1,346 



9,696 

7,379 

12,983 



10,661 

8,020 

14,329 



District Totals 2,952 



30,058 33,010 



9,688 90.8 

7,364 91.8 

13,144 91.7 

30,196 91.4 



973 

656 

1,185 

2,814 



260 

456 
648 

1,364 



2,960 3,220 3,013 

3,019 3,475 3,062 

6,347 6,995 6,332 

12,326 13,690 12,407 



93.5 


207 


88.1 


413 


90.5 


663 



90.6 



1,283 



District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 



10,079 



2,057 



1,094 
382 



1,764 58,843 46,766 



10,336 
4,543 



11,430 
4,925 



10,271 

4,448 



79.4 



14,992 17,049 15,595 91.4 



District Totals 1,476 14,879 16,355 14,719 



90.3 
89.9 



12,077 



1,454 



1,159 
477 

1,636 



6,438 



1,485 



597 
276 

873 



20,677 27,115 18,501 



12,536 14,021 12,541 



4,562 
1,911 



5,159 4,579 
2,187 1,876 



6,473 7,346 6,455 



5.2 



88.7 
85.7 

87.8 



1,614 



1,480 



580 
311 

891 



District 28 
Buncombe 



1,424 



16,261 17,685 16,204 91.6 



1,481 



818 



10,502 11,320 10,102 



).2 



1,218 



District 29 



Henderson 


1 


,084 


6,794 


7,878 


6,780 


86.0 


1,098 


393 


3,369 


3,762 


3,270 


86.9 


49? 


McDowell 




489 


5,479 


5,968 


5,130 


85.9 


838 


227 


1,426 


1,653 


1,260 


76.2 


393 


Polk 




351 


2,351 


2,702 


2,428 


89.8 


274 


124 


661 


785 


656 


83.5 


129 


Rutherford 




455 


3,827 


4,282 


3,881 


90.6 


401 


234 


2,393 


2,627 


2,265 


86.2 


362 


Transyl vania 




341 


2,382 


2,723 


2,351 


86.3 


372 


132 


917 


1,049 


873 


83.2 


176 


District Totals 


2 


,720 


20,833 


23,553 


20,570 


87.3 


2,983 


1,110 


8,766 


9,876 


8,324 


84.2 


1,552 


District 30 




























Cherokee 




186 


2,398 


2,584 


2,305 


89.2 


279 


94 


674 


768 


631 


82.1 


137 


Clay 




57 


585 


642 


579 


90.1 


63 


42 


249 


291 


262 


90.0 


29 


Graham 




82 


457 


539 


468 


86.8 


71 


49 


279 


328 


281 


85.6 


47 


Haywood 




673 


6,274 


6,947 


6,115 


88.0 


832 


572 


2,753 


3,325 


2,417 


72.6 


908 


Jackson 




358 


2,744 


3,102 


2,842 


91.6 


260 


135 


629 


764 


644 


84.2 


120 


Macon 




190 


3,114 


3,304 


3,028 


91.6 


276 


149 


630 


779 


574 


73.6 


205 


Swa i n 




98 


2,018 


2,116 


1,869 


88.3 


247 


101 


561 


662 


502 


75.8 


160 


District Totals 


1 


,644 


17,590 


19,234 


17,206 


89.4 


2,028 


1,142 


5,775 


6,917 


5,311 


76.7 


1,606 


STATE TOTALS 


88 


,751 


796,227 


884,978 


787,465 


88.9 


97,513 


47,537 


356,292 


403,829 


347,174 


85.9 


56,655 



139 



M 
I 
L 
L 

I 

N 
S 


F 

C 
A 
S 
E 
S 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1971-1979 



1.5 



8. 



0.5 _ 



0.0 



4 * FILINGS 

3 fl DISPOSITIONS 

9—-0 e ND PENDING 




& 



$ — -©■ 



9 



~8 -9- fr 



-q e 



71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 78-79 

IN TERMS OF VOLUME OF CASES. THE BULK IS LOCATED IN THE 
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURTS OF NORTH CAROLINA . CASES LEFT 
PENDING AT THE END OF A YEAR ARE SMALL IN NUMBER COMPARED 
TO THE NUMBER OF FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS THAT OCCUR. 



140 



MOTOR VEHICLE VS. NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 
IN THE DISTRICT COURTS— 1978-79 



T 

H 

U 
S 
A 
N 
D 
S 


F 

C 
A 
S 
E 
S 



800. 



600. 



400. 



200. 








MOTOR VEHICLE 



-MOTOR VEHICLE 



TRAFFIC CASES REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF CRIMINAL CASES 
HANDLED BY THE DISTRICT COURTS j IN FACT, THEY HOLD A 
GREATER THAN 2 TO 1 MARGIN OVER OTHER DISTRICT COURT 
CRIMINAL FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS. 



141 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) AND NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE (N-MV) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July I,1978-June30, 1979 







Total 


YV 


diver 


Guilty 


Plea 
Magis- 


Not Gu 


■lev Plea 
Magis- 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Speedy** 
Trial 








Magis- 




% Disposed 






Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate* 


Judge 


trate* 


Hearing 


by 


D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


By Waiver 


District 1 






























Camden 


MV 


789 


31 


464 


141 


_ 


55 


_ 


1 




50 





47 


62.7 




M-MV 


174 


3 





39 


47 


17 





22 




27 





19 


1.7 


Chowan 


MV 


1,556 


134 


898 


327 


- 


85 


- 


3 




27 





82 


66.3 




N-MV 


604 


47 


4 


176 


51 


85 





43 




80 





118 


8.4 


Currituck 


MV 


2,449 


117 


1,425 


456 


- 


133 


- 


4 




42 





272 


63.0 




N-MV 


546 


5 


4 


93 


14! 


73 





40 




55 





135 


1.6 


Dare 


MV 


3,496 


183 


1,987 


711 


- 


120 


- 


17 




300 





178 


62.1 




N-MV 


705 


18 


12 


178 


116 


75 


4 


45 




165 





92 


4.3 


Gates 


MV 


1,910 


93 


1,376 


257 


- 


113 


- 


3 




45 





23 


76.9 




N-MV 


338 


59 


18 


64 


78 


30 


1 


44 




14 





30 


22.8 


Pasquotank 


MV 


3,421 


58 7 


1,644 


768 


- 


172 


- 


6 




129 





115 


65.2 




N-MV 


1,480 


106 


86 


539 


142 


224 





144 




167 





72 


13.0 


Perquimans 


MV 


1,246 


27 


877 


189 


- 


60 


- 


1 




78 





14 


72.6 




N-MV 


288 


3 


1 


72 


4? 


62 





41 




27 





40 


1.4 


District Totals 


MV 


14,867 


1,172 


8,671 


2,849 


- 


738 


- 


35 




671 





731 


66.2 




N-MV 


4,135 


241 


125 


1,161 


617 


566 


5 


379 




535 





606 


8.9 


District 2 






























Beaufort 


MV 


6,840 


2,404 


2,150 


1,041 


. 


466 


- 


135 




541 





103 


66.6 




N-MV 


2,430 


337 


108 


676 


199 


371 


2 


193 




196 





348 


18.3 


Hyde 


MV 


457 


84 


189 


73 


- 


71 


- 


1 




13 





26 


59.7 




N-MV 


345 


7 


25 


52 


86 


58 





34 




40 





43 


9.3 


Martin 


MV 


3,590 


484 


1,538 


911 


- 


367 


- 


9 




146 





135 


56.3 




N-MV 


1,595 


160 


176 


560 


39 


190 


1 


80 




127 





262 


21.1 


Tyrrell 


MV 


460 


47 


292 


47 


- 


37 


- 


1 




12 





24 


73.7 




N-MV 


181 


17 


8 


38 


34 


46 





9 




18 





11 


13.8 


Washington 


MV 


1,449 


471 


481 


226 


- 


169 


- 


1 




82 





19 


65.7 




N-MV 


702 


141 


55 


172 


24 


162 


3 


50 




67 





28 


27.9 


District Totals 


MV 


12,796 


3,490 


4,650 


2,298 


. 


1,110 


- 


147 




794 





307 


63.6 




N-MV 


5,253 


662 


372 


1,498 


382 


827 


6 


366 




448 





692 


19.7 


District 3 






























Carteret 


MV 


6,122 


945 


2,383 


1,616 


_ 


131 


. 


5 




547 





•195 


54.4 




N-MV 


3,106 


116 


104 


813 


359 


167 


4 


79 




890 





574 


7.1 


Craven 


MV 


12,728 


2,664 


5,233 


3,126 


- 


644 


- 


22 


1 


,019 





20 


62.0 




N-MV 


4,164 


899 


81 


976 


294 


527 


3 


554 




715 





116 


23.5 


Paml ico 


MV 


1,101 


129 


354 


373 


- 


71 


- 


43 




101 





30 


43.9 




N-MV 


460 


11 


11 


103 


96 


55 


1 


51 




111 





21 


4.8 


Pitt 


MV 


11,375 


2,649 


4,018 


3,101 


- 


609 


- 


38 




902 





58 


58.6 




N-MV 


6,880 


1,437 


732 


2,124 


229 


843 


1 


491 




88 3 


3 


137 


31.5 


District Totals 


MV 


31,326 


6,387 


11,988 


8,216 


. 


1,455 


. 


108 


2 


,569 





603 


58.7 




N-MV 


14,610 


2,463 


928 


4,016 


978 


1,592 


9 


1,175 


2 


,599 


3 


84 7 


23.2 


District 4 






























Dupl in 


MV 


6,076 


1,275 


2,269 


1,708 


_ 


57 


- 


7 




576 





185 


58.3 




N-MV 


2,143 


455 


301 


458 


23 


57 





100 




388 





361 


35.3 


Jones 


MV 


1,572 


144 


738 


381 


- 


38 


- 







204 





67 


56.1 




N-MV 


582 


29 


10 


161 


44 


41 





63 




221 





13 


6.7 


Onslow 


MV 


16,482 


3,845 


5,000 


4,961 


- 


285 


- 





2 


,170 





221 


53.7 




N-MV 


7,558 


815 


373 


2,566 


292 


400 





202 


1 


,743 





1,167 


15.7 


Sampson 


MV 


10,852 


1,177 


5,311 


3,070 


- 


106 


- 


14 




599 





575 


59.8 




N-MV 


2,579 


549 


292 


740 


59 


49 


8 


89 




571 





??? 


32.6 


District Totals 


MV 


34,982 


6,441 


13,318 


10,120 


. 


486 


. 


21 


3 


,548 





1,048 


56.5 




N-MV 


12,862 


1,848 


976 


3,925 


418 


547 


8 


464 


2 


,923 





1,763 


22.0 


District 5 






























New Hanover 


MV 


13,444 


5,356 


1,514 


3,183 


. 


1,377 


. 


160 


1 


,758 





96 


51.1 




N-MV 


8,609 


665 


332 


2,972 


482 


1,262 





444 


1 


,511 





441 


11.6 


Pender 


MV 


3,706 


;'73 


1,713 


910 


- 


229 


- 


1 




462 





118 


53.6 




N-MV 


1,048 


3 





296 


8 70 


121 


9 


82 




144 





123 


.3 


District Totals 


MV 


17,150 


5,629 


3,227 


4,093 


- 


1,606 


. 


161 


2 


,220 





214 


51.6 




N-MV 


9,657 


668 


332 


3,268 


752 


1,383 


9 


1,026 


1 


,655 





564 


10.4 



•This type of disposition cannot occur for motor vehicle cases. 
**The data in this disposition category is for the six-month period from January 
this type of disposition was not available. 



1979— June 30, 1979. Before January 1, 1979, data on 



142 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) AND NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE (N-MV) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1978-June 30, 1979 







Total 


w 


aiver 


Guilty 


Plea 

Magis- 


Not Guilty Plea 
Magis- 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Speedy** 
Trial 








Magis- 




% Disposed 






Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate* 


Judge 


trate* 


Hearing 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


By Waiver 


District 6 




























Bertie 


MV 


3,690 


529 


2,039 


564 


- 


121 


- 


21 


132 





284 


69.6 




N-MV 


751 


66 


46 


158 


98 


136 


2 


5;* 


88 





105 


14.9 


Hal ifax 


MV 


11,218 


1,950 


4,010 


2,629 


- 


325 


- 


27 


1,093 





1,184 


53.1 




N-MV 


3,335 


228 


48 


764 


517 


458 


11 


321 


694 





294 


8.3 


Hertford 


MV 


4,497 


821 


2,224 


750 


- 


262 


- 


11 


3 79 





50 


67.7 




N-MV 


1,311 


387 


27 


231 


57 


188 


16 


63 


197 





145 


31.6 


Northampton 


MV 


6,225 


597 


2,979 


938 


- 


146 


- 


25 


431 





1,109 


57.4 




N-MV 


619 


82 


40 


145 


69 


74 


1 


39 


98 





71 


19.7 


District Totals 


MV 


25,630 


3,897 


11,252 


4,881 


_ 


854 


_ 


84 


2,035 





2,627 


59.1 




N-MV 


6,016 


763 


161 


1,298 


741 


856 


30 


475 


1,077 





615 


15.4 


District 7 




























Edgecombe 


MV 


5,197 


1,559 


1,785 


1,027 


. 


215 


_ 


12 


588 





11 


64.3 




N-MV 


4,876 


714 


286 


1,423 


413 


630 


6 


352 


783 





269 


20.5 


Nash 


MV 


8,479 


2,021 


3,443 


1,459 


- 


326 


- 


24 


1,191 


f) 


15 


64.4 




N-MV 


4,767 


977 


350 


1,066 


355 


475 





512 


801 





231 


27.8 


Wilson 


MV 


8,696 


3,157 


3,151 


1,116 


- 


287 


- 


40 


599 





346 


72.5 




N-MV 


4,112 


629 


128 


1,032 


187 


335 


8 


373 


587 


3 


830 


18.4 


District Totals 


MV 


22,372 


6,737 


8,379 


3,602 


_ 


828 


_ 


76 


2,378 





372 


67.6 




N-MV 


13,755 


2,320 


764 


3,521 


955 


1,440 


14 


1,237 


2,171 


3 


1,330 


22.4 


District 8 




























Greene 


MV 


1,600 


445 


568 


373 


_ 


36 


_ 





70 





108 


63.3 




N-MV 


793 


79 


9 


212 


59 


10 3 





92 


187 





52 


11.1 


Lenoir 


MV 


9,063 


378 


4,804 


2,114 


- 


249 


- 


63 


1,013 





442 


57.2 




N-MV 


4,894 


119 


2 


1,676 


587 


552 


2 


387 


1,250 





319 


2.5 


Wayne 


MV 


13,599 


1,631 


6,898 


2,753 


- 


386 


- 


53 


1,772 





106 


62.7 




N-MV 


6,098 


565 


783 


1,711 


221 


480 


1 


294 


1,662 





381 


22.1 


District Totals 


MV 


24,262 


2,454 


12,270 


5,240 


- 


671 


. 


116 


2,855 





656 


60. 7 




N-MV 


11,785 


763 


794 


3,599 


867 


1,135 


3 


773 


3,099 





752 


13.2 


District 9 




























Franklin 


MV 


4,019 


1,191 


1,036 


1,113 


- 


30? 


_ 


9 


352 





16 


55.4 




N-MV 


1,370 


304 


34 


354 


66 


210 





134 


2 34 





34 


24.7 


Granvil le 


MV 


4,273 


1,351 


1,149 


1,119 


- 


166 


- 


5 


446 





37 


58.5 




N-MV 


1,707 


314 


116 


608 


143 


211 


2 


97 


164 





52 


25.2 


Person 


MV 


3,381 


1,316 


443 


1,095 


- 


240 


- 


2 


255 





30 


52.0 




N-MV 


1,625 


119 


15 


516 


215 


369 





107 


233 





51 


8.2 


Vance 


MV 


4,452 


1,524 


1,121 


858 


- 


245 


- 


18 


397 





289 


59.4 




N-MV 


2,550 


437 


133 


739 


39 


338 


12 


167 


334 





351 


22.4 


Warren 


MV 


2,340 


401 


945 


612 


- 


114 


- 


1 


176 





88 


57.6 




N-MV 


885 


84 


32 


249 


102 


172 


2 


33 


136 





75 


13.1 


District Totals 


MV 


18,465 


5,786 


4,694 


4,797 


_ 


1,067 


_ 


35 


1,626 





460 


56.8 




N-MV 


8,137 


1,258 


330 


2,466 


565 


1,300 


16 


538 


1,101 





56 3 


19.5 


District 10 




























Wake 


MV 


46,789 


1,661 


25,011 


9,638 


. 


3,156 


. 


68 


7,139 





116 


57.0 




N-MV 


23,775 


681 


5,202 


7,625 


1,611 


2,079 





912 


4,247 





1,418 


24.7 


District 11 




























Harnett 


MV 


7,763 


1,982 


2,472 


1,901 


_ 


319 


_ 


14 


775 





300 


57.4 




N-MV 


3,203 


368 


235 


880 


256 


306 


6 


125 


705 





322 


18.8 


Johnston 


MV 


13,471 


2,003 


5,248 


2,997 


- 


640 


- 


19 


1,462 





1,102 


53.8 




N-MV 


3,188 


419 


248 


1,105 


51 


441 


7 


178 


487 


2 


250 


20.9 


Lee 


MV 


3,968 


1,587 


973 


962 


- 


145 


- 


6 


284 





11 


64.5 




N-MV 


3,913 


998 


118 


1,342 


7 


347 





263 


501 





337 


28.5 


District Totals 


MV 


25,202 


5,572 


8,693 


5,860 


- 


1,104 


- 


39 


2,521 





1,413 


56.6 




N-MV 


10,304 


1,785 


601 


3,327 


314 


1,094 


13 


566 


1,693 


2 


909 


23.2 


District 12 




























Cumberland 


MV 


38,690 


2,144 


19,999 


8,128 


_ 


2,202 


. 


75 


5,703 





439 


57.2 




N-MV 


22,418 


675 


3,355 


4,456 


684 


1,740 


7 


147 


5,209 





6,145 


18.0 


Hoke 


MV 


3,735 


367 


1,844 


964 


- 


149 


- 


3 


255 





153 


59.2 




N-MV 


1,250 


103 


133 


403 


7 


202 





38 


297 





67 


18.9 


District Totals 


MV 


42,425 


2,511 


21,843 


9,092 


- 


2,351 


- 


78 


5,958 





592 


57.4 




N-MV 


23,668 


778 


3,488 


4,859 


691 


1,942 


7 


185 


5,506 





6,212 


18.0 


*This type of d 


sposition 


cannot occur for motor vehicle cases 


















**The data in this disposition categor 


y is for th 


e six-mor 


th period from J 


anuary 1 


, 1979- 


June 30, 


1979. Before Janua 


ry 1, 1979, data on 



this type of disposition was not available. 



143 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) AND NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE (N-MV) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1978-June 30, 1979 







Total 
Disposed 


w 


ai>er 


Guilty 
Judge 


Plea 
Magis- 
trate* 


Not (.ui 
Judge 


ty Plea 
Magis- 
trate* 


Prelim. 
Hearing 


Dismissa 
by D.A. 


Speedy ** 

Trial 
Dismissal 


Other 




District 13 


Magis- 
trate 


Clerk 


% Disposed 
By Waiter 


Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 


MV 

N-MV 

MV 

N-MV 

MV 

N-MV 


6,831 
2,413 
4,553 
1,809 
9,338 
3,767 


884 
106 
1,655 
150 
862 
252 


3,200 
138 

1,028 
17 

3,889 
615 


1,640 
814 

1,110 
411 

1,642 

1,047 


391 
189 

5 34 


131 
269 
151 

180 

1,244 
356 


1 





7 

92 

3 

193 

9 

157 


1 


872 
473 
279 

376 
,355 
578 











97 

129 
327 
293 
337 
228 


59.8 
10.1 
58.9 
9.2 
50.9 
23.0 


District Totals 


MV 
N-MV 


20,722 
7,989 


3,401 
508 


8,117 
770 


4,392 
2,272 


1,114 


1,526 

805 


1 


19 

442 


2 

1 


,506 
,427 







761 
650 


55.6 
16.0 


District 14 






























Durham 


MV 
N-MV 


18,483 

11,720 


354 
795 


10,285 
1,086 


4,589 
5,140 


99 


728 
1,232 


1 


24 

668 


2 
2 


,127 
,356 







376 
343 


57.6 
16.0 


District 15A 






























Alamance 


MV 
N-MV 


11,694 
4,616 


2,674 
485 


4,101 
19 


2,820 

1,673 


249 


817 

7 1 6 


n 


14 
309 




806 
931 






462 
234 


57.9 
10.9 


District 15B 






























Chatham 
Orange 


MV 

N-MV 
MV 
N-MV 


5,338 

1,186 

10,521 

3,379 


758 

98 

2,242 

435 


2,109 
40 

3,662 
88 


1,877 
378 

2,623 
956 


161 
134 


170 
113 
490 
394 




1 




81 
15 

313 




374 

251 
656 

797 









50 

64 

833 

262 


53.7 
11.6 
56.1 
15.5 


District Totals 


MV 
N-MV 


15,859 
4,565 


3,000 
533 


5,771 
128 


4,500 
1,334 


295 


660 

507 


1 


15 
393 


1 
1 


,030 
,048 






883 

3 .36 


55.3 
14.5 


District 16 






























Robeson 
Scotland 


MV 

N-MV 
MV 
N-MV 


17,405 
8,737 
5,161 
2,894 


4,540 

1,371 

1,864 

425 


4,816 
210 

1,548 
71 


4,398 

3,274 

1,051 

892 


351 
282 


494 
811 
110 
354 


l 
16 


17 

4 77 



113 




530 

315 
151 
223 








2,810 

1,927 

437 

518 


53.8 
18.1 
66.1 
17.1 


District Totals 


MV 
N-MV 


22,566 
11,631 


6,404 
1,796 


6,364 
281 


5,449 
4,166 


633 


604 
1,165 


17 


17 

590 




481 
538 






3,247 
2,445 


56.6 
17.9 


District 17 






























Caswel 1 
Rockingham 
Stokes 
Surry 


MV 

N-MV 

MV 

N-MV 

MV 

N-MV 

MV 

N-MV 


2,211 
697 

9,607 
5,014 
3,537 
1,003 
6,449 
3,311 


637 

60 
3,070 
630 
572 
105 
3,006 
307 


708 

2 

3,069 

55 

1,761 

25 

708 

64 


500 

178 

2,008 

1,454 

320 

151 

1,408 

834 


93 
339 
230 

149 


108 
126 
553 
822 
508 
160 
273 
45? 


1 



1 


2 

33 

9 

173 


46 

6 

287 




206 
79 
778 
805 
343 
116 
631 
544 















50 
125 
130 
736 

33 
176 
417 
673 


60.8 
8.9 
63.9 
13.7 
66.0 
13.0 
57.6 
11.2 


District Totals 


MV 
N-MV 


21,804 
10,025 


7,285 
1,102 


6,246 
146 


4,236 
2,617 


811 


1,442 
1,560 


3 


17 
533 


1 
1 


,958 
,544 






620 
1,710 


62.1 
12.4 


District 18 






























Guil ford 


MV 
N-MV 


41,995 
19,618 


3,162 

264 


22,213 
407 


8,970 
8,300 


1,444 


2,283 
2,111 


75 


43 
527 


4 
4 


,845 
,644 







479 
1,846 


60.4 
3.4 


District 19A 






























Cabarrus 
Rowan 


MV 

N-MV 
MV 
N-MV 


12,238 
3,872 

10,857 
4,477 


3,579 
288 

1,872 
254 


5,125 

98 

5,472 

209 


1,420 
1,145 
1,455 
1,198 


350 
266 


808 

814 
782 

747 


2 
7 


9 

46 7 
6 

431 


1 


,207 
573 
506 
582 




1 


26 


90 
134 
764 
793 


71.1 
10.0 
67.6 
10.3 


District Totals 


MV 
N-MV 


23,095 
8,349 


5,451 
542 


10,597 
307 


2,875 
2 t 343 


616 


1,590 
1,561 


9 


16 
888 


1 
1 


,713 
,155 




1 


854 
927 


69.5 
10.2 


District 19B 






























Montgomery 
Randol ph 


MV 

N-MV 

MV 

N-MV 


4,278 
1,763 
9,025 
2,913 


3,112 
253 

1,979 
584 


1 

1 

4,427 

1 


683 

304 

1,394 

747 


56 

141 


216 

307 
500 
341 







5 
143 

3 
236 




348 
335 
611 
694 









13 

464 
111 
169 


72.8 
14.4 
71.0 
20.1 


District Totals 


MV 
N-MV 


13,303 
4,676 


5,091 
837 


4,428 
2 


2,077 
1,051 


197 


716 
548 





8 
379 


1 


859 

,029 






134 
633 


71.6 
17.9 


*This type of d 
**The data in thi 


sposition 
s disposit 


cannot occur for m 
on category is for th 


otor veh 

e six-mo 


cle cases 
ith perio 


d from 


January 1, 


1979- 


-June 30, 


1979. Be 


"ore January 1, 1 979. data on 



this type of disposition was not available. 



144 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) AND NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE (N-MV) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1 978-June 30, 1979 







Total 


W 


aiter 


Guilty 


Plea 
Magis- 


Not (iu 


ill v Plea 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Speedy* * 
Trial 








Magis- 






Magis- 


% Disposed 






Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate* 


Judge 


trate* 


Hearing 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


By Waiver 


District 20 




























Anson 


MV 


4,529 


1,062 


1,805 


1,059 


- 


170 


- 


2 


?!\? 





189 


63.3 




N-MV 


1,456 


53 


5 


401 


144 


220 


2 


1/9 


318 





134 


4.0 


Moore 


MV 


6,357 


1,475 


1,929 


1,970 


- 


161 


- 


12 


352 





458 


53.5 




N-MV 


3,422 


607 


151 


720 


L31 


2 39 


1 


330 


611 





632 


22.2 


Richmond 


MV 


5,703 


1,408 


1,889 


1,436 


- 


235 


- 


24 


248 





463 


57.8 




N-MV 


2,965 


285 


37 


661 


178 


411 





4/9 


760 





154 


10.9 


Stanly 


MV 


6,659 


1,960 


2,039 


1,818 


- 


41 


- 


25 


717 





59 


60.1 




N-MV 


2,033 


358 


20 


755 


104 


75 


2 


148 


506 





65 


18.6 


Union 


MV 


7,179 


1,828 


2,642 


1,656 


- 


359 


- 


49 


244 





401 


62.3 




N-MV 


3,159 


505 


12 


824 


10', 


504 


7 


430 


618 





154 


16.4 


District Totals 


MV 


30,427 


7,733 


10,304 


7,939 


- 


966 


- 


112 


1,803 





1,570 


59.3 




N-MV 


13,035 


1,808 


225 


3,361 


662 


1,449 


12 


1,566 


2,813 





1,139 


15.6 


District 21 




























Forsyth 


MV 


37,358 


54 


23,899 


5,867 


- 


2,666 


- 


38 


4,660 





174 


64.1 




N-MV 


13,628 


13 


2,191 


4,085 


119 


2,716 


5 


1,049 


2,808 





642 


16.2 


District 22 




























Alexander 


MV 


1,927 


69? 


418 


517 


- 


114 


- 





173 





13 


57.6 




N-MV 


1,022 


92 


10 


200 


249 


95 


1 


78 


268 


o 


29 


10.0 


Davidson 


MV 


13,065 


3,011 


5,149 


2,662 


- 


44 3 


- 


8 


1,693 





99 


62.5 




N-MV 


5,160 


244 


120 


1,690 


343 


828 


2 


352 


1,321 





260 


7.1 


Davie 


MV 


4,573 


2,988 


403 


629 


- 


101 


- 


1 


354 





97 


74.2 




N-MV 


852 


72 


4 


204 


30 


72 


2 


55 


144 





269 


8.9 


I rede 1 1 


MV 


10,131 


4,154 


2,482 


1,961 


- 


389 


- 


11 


1,010 





124 


65.5 




N-MV 


4,576 


561 


19 


1,321 


399 


453 


10 


462 


1,187 





164 


12.7 


District Totals 


MV 


29,696 


10,845 


8,452 


5,769 


- 


1,047 


- 


20 


3,230 





333 


65.0 




N-MV 


11,610 


969 


153 


3,415 


1,021 


1,448 


15 


947 


2,920 





722 


9.7 


District 23 




























Al leghany 


MV 


713 


312 


106 


173 


_ 


48 


. 


6 


42 





26 


58.6 




N-MV 


280 


35 





64 


35 


39 


1 


12 


54 





40 


12.5 


Ashe 


MV 


1,781 


512 


686 


459 


- 


185 


- 


6 


62 





71 


56.0 




N-MV 


942 


56 


61 


274 


77 


153 


1 


93 


30 





197 


12.4 


Wilkes 


MV 


6,697 


2,158 


1,687 


1,539 


- 


586 


- 


10 


398 





319 


57.4 




N-MV 


2,927 


381 


41 


682 


209 


540 


2 


135 


579 





358 


14.4 


Yadkin 


MV 


2,831 


793 


1,010 


604 


- 


196 


- 


2 


96 





1 SO 


63.7 




N-MV 


1,213 


1/0 


32 


299 


9? 


182 





112 


151 





175 


16.7 


District Totals 


MV 


12,022 


3,575 


3,489 


2,775 


- 


1,015 


- 


24 


598 





546 


58.8 




N-MV 


5,362 


642 


134 


1,319 


413 


914 


4 


352 


814 





770 


14.5 


District 24 




























Avery 


MV 


1,651 


773 


358 


239 


- 


75 


- 


8 


179 





19 


68.5 




N-MV 


599 


75 


3 


97 


55 


65 


4 


71 


18(1 





49 


13.0 


Madison 


MV 


2,536 


260 


1,210 


175 


- 


52 


- 


15 


792 





32 


58.0 




N-MV 


336 


1 


2 


53 


21 


46 





18 


1 S7 





58 


.9 


Mitchell 


MV 


1,145 


194 


441 


208 


- 


53 


- 


3 


222 





22 


55.6 




N-MV 


322 


15 


7 


87 


34 


40 


1 


22 


76 





40 


6.8 


Watauga 


MV 


4,120 


729 


1,909 


747 


- 


148 


- 





556 





3] 


64.0 




N-MV 


947 


149 


78 


162 


80 


83 


26 


47 


264 





5S 


24.0 


Yancey 


MV 


1,467 


225 


659 


166 


- 


71 


- 


7 


328 





11 


60.3 




N-MV 


548 


9 


4 


63 


215 


71 


1 


55 


113 





17 


2.4 


District Totals 


MV 


10,919 


2,181 


4,579 


1,535 


- 


399 


- 


33 


2,077 





115 


61.9 




N-MV 


2,752 


249 


94 


462 


405 


30b 


32 


213 


770 





222 


12.5 


District 25 




























Burke 


MV 


9,688 


1,444 


4,550 


2,188 


- 


209 


. 


4 


1,059 





234 


61.9 




N-MV 


3,013 


273 


60 


870 


169 


271 


2 


207 


891 





270 


11.1 


Caldwell 


MV 


7,364 


3,213 


789 


2,311 


- 


257 


- 


6 


557 





231 


54.3 




N-MV 


3,062 


202 





731 


297 


358 


1 


174 


982 





31/ 


6.6 


Catawba 


MV 


13,144 


4,118 


3,474 


3,780 


- 


421 


- 


9 


818 





524 


57.8 




N-MV 


6,332 


649 


97 


1,483 


374 


628 





41b 


1,417 





1,269 


11.8 


District Totals 


MV 


30,196 


8,775 


8,813 


8,279 


- 


887 


- 


19 


2,434 





989 


58.2 




N-MV 


12,407 


1,124 


157 


3,084 


840 


1,257 


3 


796 


3,290 


n 


1,856 


10.3 



"This type of disposition cannot occur for motor vehicle cases. 
**The data in this disposition category is for the six-month period from January 1, 1979 — June 30, 1979. Before January 1, 1979, data on 
this type of disposition was not available. 



145 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF MOTOR VEHICLE (MV) AND NON-MOTOR 
VEHICLE (N-MV) CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1978-June 30, 1979 







Total 


\\ 


aiver 


Guilt) 


Plea 
Magis- 


Not (»u 


ilt\ Plea 
Magis- 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Speedy** 
Trial 








Magis- 




% Disposed 






Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate* 


Judge 


trate* 


Hearing 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


By Waiver 


District 26 




























Mecklenburg 


MV 


46,766 


1,427 


24,904 


9,614 


. 


2,701 


. 


51 


7,862 


1 


206 


56.3 




N-MV 


18,501 


895 


151 


4,697 


2,206 


1,600 


1 


1,252 


6,697 


5 


997 


5.7 


District 27A 




























Gaston 


MV 


15,595 


6,782 


2,076 


3,282 


- 


743 


- 


5 


2,549 





158 


56.8 




N-MV 


12,541 


884 


17 


3,050 


817 


1,322 


2 


16 7 


2,599 





3,683 


7.2 


District 27B 




























Cleveland 


MV 


10,271 


5,007 


1,332 


2,366 


. 


187 


_ 


2 


864 





513 


61.7 




N-MV 


4,579 


462 


27 


1,434 


194 


380 


9 


263 


1,387 





423 


10.7 


Lincoln 


MV 


4,448 


1,613 


926 


1,007 


- 


121 


- 


5 


755 





21 


57.1 




N-MV 


1,876 


190 


92 


453 


113 


198 





111 


552 





167 


15.0 


District Totals 


MV 


14,719 


6,620 


2,258 


3,373 


- 


308 


- 


7 


1,619 





534 


60.3 




N-MV 


6,455 


652 


119 


1,887 


307 


578 


9 


374 


1,939 





590 


11.9 


District 28 




























Buncombe 


MV 


16,204 


5,402 


5,302 


3,518 


- 


4 ftfi 


. 


38 


1,297 





159 


66.1 




N-MV 


10,102 


1,218 


431 


4,096 


519 


682 


1 


64 5 


1,631 





879 


16.3 


District 29 




























Henderson 


MV 


6,780 


2,821 


1,462 


993 


- 


156 


. 


4 


906 





4 38 


63.2 




N-MV 


3,270 


4 


36 


804 


743 


191 


2 


192 


596 





702 


1.2 


Mc Dowel 1 


MV 


5,130 


3,310 


125 


904 


- 


184 


- 


25 


331 





251 


67.0 




N-MV 


1,260 


50 


3 


366 


206 


126 


3 


115 


219 





172 


4.2 


Polk 


MV 


2,428 


83 


1,436 


387 


- 


71 


- 


3 


66 





382 


62.6 




N-MV 


656 


6 


5 


205 


36 


63 


9 


63 


148 





121 


1.7 


Rutherford 


MV 


3,881 


1,900 


45] 


783 


- 


260 


- 


12 


164 





311 


60.6 




N-MV 


2,265 


171 


4 


578 


441 


395 


1 


190 


366 





119 


7.7 


Transylvania 


MV 


2,351 


420 


1,123 


412 


- 


102 


- 


2 


212 





80 


65.6 




N-MV 


873 


36 


53 


239 


137 


80 


21 


14 


188 





105 


10.2 


District Totals 


MV 


20,570 


8,534 


4,597 


3,479 


- 


773 


_ 


46 


1,679 





1,462 


63.8 




N-MV 


8,324 


267 


101 


2,192 


1,563 


855 


36 


574 


1,517 





1,219 


4.4 


District 30 




























Cherokee 


MV 


2,305 


33 


1,428 


384 


- 


15 


- 


3 


360 





82 


63.4 




N-MV 


631 


2 


36 


192 


37 


7 





60 


199 





98 


6.0 


Clay 


MV 


579 


18 


314 


96 


- 


8 


- 


2 


46 





95 


57.3 




N-MV 


262 








33 


87 


8 





35 


72 





27 


.0 


Graham 


MV 


468 


13 


272 


97 


- 


20 


- 





59 





1 


60.9 




N-MV 


281 


3 


1 


50 


116 


13 


7 


2 


70 





19 


1.4 


Haywood 


MV 


6,115 


3,293 


16 


1,268 


- 


149 


- 


11 


676 


1 


701 


54.1 




N-MV 


2,417 


348 


14 


501 


218 


125 


19 


251 


725 


2 


214 


15.0 


Jackson 


MV 


2,842 


445 


1,196 


551 


- 


32 


- 


7 


287 





324 


57.7 




N-MV 


644 


1 


12 


82 


138 


11 


10 


12 


143 





235 


2.0 


Macon 


MV 


3,028 


5 39 


999 


368 


- 


40 


- 


1 


148 





933 


50.8 




N-MV 


574 


30 


3 


89 


117 


27 


1 


59 


113 





135 


5.7 


Swain 


MV 


1,869 


965 


367 


214 


- 


9 


- 


1 


108 


1 


204 


71.3 




N-MV 


502 


14 


7 


69 


140 


16 


5 


14 


135 





102 


4.2 


District Totals 


MV 


17,206 


5,306 


4,592 


2,978 


_ 


273 


- 


25 


1,684 


2 


2,346 


57.5 




N-MV 


5,311 


398 


73 


1,016 


853 


207 


42 


433 


1,457 


2 


830 


8.9 


STATE TOTALS 


MV 


787,465 


155,793 


315,383 


169,002 


_ 


38,058 


. 


1,558 


82,131 


3 


25,537 


59.8 




N-MV 


347,174 


30,211 


21,065 


102,123 


24,074 


38,299 


388 


21,183 


70,981 


16 


38,834 


14.8 



*This type of disposition cannot occur for motor vehicle cases. 
**The data in this disposition category is for the six-month period from January 1, 1979 — June 30, 1979. Before January 
this type of disposition was not available. 



1979, data on 



146 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT 

CRIMINAL CASES 

1978-79 



GUILTY PLEA 



295,199 



NOT GUILTY PLEA 



76,745 



DISMISSALS 




WAIVERS 



522,452 



153,13 



OTHER - 87,112 



Waivers composed a major portion of district court criminal dispositions, 46% of disposed cases were waived. 26% 
of all dispostions were pleas of guilty, 6.8% were pleas of not guilty, 13.5% were dismissed, and 7.7% were disposed 
in some other way. 



147 



A 



i£>oooLn«jrNrHc\jc\jro<\jHco cn <3- 

O CD i— i i— < O ro CM i-H •— < C\J CM 



CMUDOO^CnOCDOO ■— « to 
OO O CD O CD 



COtn^NOmrHM UD UD 



oiHHincocO'HHCOr-.fl-cOi 
C\J «— i ro -^j- i— i .— i .— i cm ■— < i 



cn «cr cm ro ( 



>C^O OLO ID 

IHOOH 



ro (Ji i — i UD < 



i lt> ro ro O lO 



C\JrHr\JiH*d-HniHrHr-ICM'-irsJH C\J ■— « 



^TOro^Htjon^ r-.cn 

•— • C\J CM CM CM CD •— i i—i 



ro i— i ld cn o ■* U3 cm my: 

CO CO CM 1-H <— I «— I ,— < 



o 
U 



Q „2 



uDOcncn^j-or--'— iohnoudco <=j- «=j- 
<— i co "s^* ' — icnr--«^j'cnLOLOLnLO | X)CM ud in 



CvJOt-HixDroLnr-CMr-.'^r <3- o 

CMCMCO<^-LD«^-rOt— ICMCO COCO 



OuOOCNJCOUDUDCM LOOO 

coco<=d-Ln[--uDmuD in ud 



in cm ■— iNOM^LncMOconoco<d- ro ud 



rouDr--couDUDcncoi 



i VD CD UD 



UDOOlDUDCM'd-i-' "=* CD 



CJ> w^ 



.2 Oi 

■a cue 
± < 



kOO^LnHiD^DoicoiciHr-co^ ud^t 



HcococDLDHinnHN ^j-ro 
•^LncocouncMroo^co <^- r-. 



<^i-cnro<— iinr-«^i-ro id r- 1 
cnr-.<*ro«a-ONCO in vd 



.5 > 



2 1 



((DroNinr-^criLncriLnr-rvoo ro r-- 



cn*3-uD>3-cnuDUDinoco<— < o ud co r-- in 

CONLnO^<d-CTiOHntMCO^CO in ro 
rvrHirnD^io^rvCTirort^CMCM co «— « 



i<— lOir-cO'd-Lnrocriro h cn 



OOMnOlTlO i-iOiCM UD rO 

^roLD^i-CPicrnDa)<3-o a> in 
co^j-"^-coLT)Ln^r<— t*^rr- r-^cM 



en o m >— hdnhn rocn 



C\JUDC»^-'- | OlDO 
CvJOCMUDOUDr-CO 

^H^Hr-~<-Hr-(^j-roco 



UD ro cm «5j- - 



il 


« 


> 


u 




^ 


!= 


e 


© 


IT 




il 


o 


0* 


7. 


< 

-a 


i 


e 


c 


cs 


© 


Sv 


z 


t- 


13 


e 


e 




« 


>C 


, , 


=i 



UDOCnUDOOCM--H 

cm en *^- «^j- o o 

cm cm ro «* 



C0OUDinr-<Or-.<— I CMID 

CO ro co <t r-. r-- lo «tf- 

.—I .—I ,— l <— l *? ro 



O^r-iCM'sKOCMr-iMCM 00 Cn 

CM ro cm «3- 



CTi^rHro^-^r^^cncM 



O r-. 


Lnro^DO^HOco 


m r- 


O CM 


CM CT. UD CO HN 


O *3" 


r— 1 


«— < t— 1 •— ' 


«=T CM 



~ a. 



cncncDr-.uDCM<3 - CMC0uD'— tcnroi-^ mcm 
u-> o ro "d- n co co -^ o cn cn «3- ro .— t 

i— I i-H CO r-H cm nm 



■^-CTiCM HrvOCTiH CM i— I 

ropooi«^>d-r-tco^ ud in 
lo roNCM m «3- cncD 



> 

© 
© 



o 

■r, 
M 



ox 

< 



4< «f 



rHCNjOfOOlOCOOCOlDOCOOLn HO 



rOCMOHCMlDfOlDr^HCMCOCOl 



MCTiCM-HiDO'HrOCMNCTtVDOH CO I 

I"-. CM ID CM U) kD ro CO C\J O CM iJD iX) 1 

t— I CM UDCMCM CM <— t •— I LOi 



^J- LO CD UD r-» ■ 



t O ro O O CD O 



Or- l CM UD CO CD CO O 



cm r— 

r-- cm 



c\j^inincM«to<MOiD idcm 



co r- 
cn ro 
r-. ro 



o lOr-icMCM mo ■-' cocn 

^J-CM<^-rouDUDinLO CMcn 

COCOCTi'^COCM'-'iD UD <3" 

HCM .— I CM CM «— < CM 



CD^J-'^J-'— in r-iro id OCM 
lorocn (OLOHfON *^- <n 
t— i cn r- 1 ^j- (mh ud un 



i — i « — > ro cm 



; =» s: =* e > : 



>• s: > s: >■£:>■ : 



: > 2: > s: =* : 



r— cn 



a 



148 



A 



3 
O 

u 



X 


■3- 




r~- 


Q 


X 




r- 


<u 


&> 


JZ 





.= > 



s. 


^ 


Zj 


'-< 


s. 




« 


— 


u 


IX 



^ r^ 



U © 






i o <xi i— i <-h co 



coomcncnocnLn r--. icn 

HOJHr-HDMHH CO.— I 



OOCNjrOtH^j^oCO ^ lo 
cocmlococmcm^co co cm 



cnococncnr-cncn r-. co 
co cn co ^ co <— i r^ co co<— < 



i >H/ 00 rH LO CD LO 



cncocMuocncor--r-- co lo 



r--UDO^«3-COUDroO 



iDniMCJ(\JCOc\jcri cm cm 

N^NCOCOLDLnt^ CO LO 

o «— i m in ^- ld co in cn co 



«h- CO CM LO <d" LO 
HfOlON CM M 



CO kD CO <Ti CO LO 
C\J CMCM rH CJ CM 



LO CM «3" Cn r-» CTi 

in coud in lo r-» 



rH CJ) en en CO ^3" 



CO lo <~< CO <— I CO 
CO *^J- LO CO LO ^f 



' OOi CO LO CM 



' -— * r-- o «d- 



rj- cn lo co o r-» 

•^ 00<J LO LO 

rj- lo r-. o hid 



HOO^cntncgi 

rH O CD rH 



rj- LO ,— I LO O r- IHO LOCO 
CM CM CD 



i co en r- co id ud cm •— « 

CM CM i— I ^H CM CM 



rHcorocncO^f^Oi CO cn, 
VDCMNOlNCOLnCM LO P-. 



NUDCOrOkD Hi 



i£K\JM^^OOOir) 



i LO LO CO CD rj- CTi I 



OHcoiriNHLnai o lo 

OMnHnoiHcjH nn 

LOf--CMCO*H r COCMLO IDO 

CO HfO<JHlD LO LO 



*d- «h- CM CO CM CO CM CO 

CO cn ^j- p- r-. lo udo 

,-H r-H .-H ,-H ,—t CM HCVJ 

CO id "3- in r^ n r--.ro 

CO CM «H/ CO LO CO *3-CO 

OOCONOifO co cn 

cn o cm cn cn co oo 

O rH CM CO LO CM I-- LO 

LOLOr-trj-CMO cm n 

CO COCO COCO CO COCO 

LO r— IITHDN n CM N 

O NNU30 l/l CTt LO 

CM rH .-H .—I CM rH ^H^-t 

co in a» cm <t ro h i^) 

Lf) <t Lf) ro UD <i) LO «h* 

cocococococo coco 



N IDCD N UD CM CM ID 

OlNN IDO^ H C-.LO 

rH CO -d" N ID <h CO N 

LO^J-COrj-cO^r CMCO 



-=■ 2 



o 


73 


> 


u 




<— 


k. 





O 


r. 




<u 


O 


zt 


£ 


< 
•a 


i 


c 


c 


fl 


o 


3- 


z 


r- 


■o 


— 


c 




w 


<C 


, . 


ix 




c 



i ^ *d- lo -^r 



Lfi^-LnOMOincn 
lo lo en O LO 

CM t— « 



Q "7 



CM «sfr 


rj- co r-. lo 


rH cn 


CO rH 


LO «H/ CO LO 


LO O 


CO rj- 


rH 


i— i CM 



cm cn 


co lo r^ lo 


O •-< 


cnLocorj-cMOLOcsj 


O^ rH 


LO ^ 


cm r- r*- •— i 


O en 


co r^ CM LO LO 


^f rH 


m cm 


T—> 1— 1 


r.l rH 


rH r— 1 


CM CM 



LO O 


rH CO 1*--. LO 


co «=]- 


CM CO 


co en «rj- 


CM O 



CMLOOCDrj-ojCOCn 


en r--. 


co en en co 


COLO«rJ-rHCMCOr-.rJ- 


LO rj- 


CO LO LD 


,_, ^ ,_, ,_, 


r— . cm 


CM i—< 



^■NNiDCMOMDrv 

cOLoenrHrj-r—OrH 

CO rH «H- N UD CM 



cn cn 
cm r— . 

LO <—* 



co cn cd CD co cn 

rH rH CO LO ^ LO 

cn co cm rH co 



rHrHOCMLOCOO'iLO LO •— I 

rHurjLOcocnr-.r-.CM <^ cn 
cm co cm cm co r^ co 



i cn co rH r-. CD «—< o 

I CO LO «* C\J CO O LO 
rH i— I CM CM 



LD ttfON nm CnLO 

LoencorHOLO -h-lo 

rH rH CM t—t «cj- CO 



COr^r-.r-.»H r cTt cnco 
Lnncoi^o^- ^3-lo 

COCOLOCOCOCO COO 



u 



o 


— 


> 





o 


'-J 
II 
< 


O 





COCDCOOOCOOCO rj-Ln 



NNOHN^-HCO lOH 

NN^DLninrsts<t LOCO 

COLOLOr-.LOCOO"3- HCO 

rH CM CM CO rH rH 



Cn O rH CD 



CO I-*, r-- CD *3- CD 

CM rH CO O O LO 

CO CM CO CO rH ^ 

rH ,— I CO rH ,— I 



rHOrJ-p-rHLOCnO LOCD 



cococncMcncDr-.co *-t *$■ 



CO LO CO CTi ^ i 



i r-. cn lo o co 



■J) 
SI 
< 



H8 



CO HO HCMMNO 
COLOUOCOLOlOCNJ*^ 

r- ^ ^_. r-« cn co r-- 



cn >rj- CD lo cn o 

rH O rH rj- CM LO 
rj" rj- LO rH Cn LO 



>» e > e: >■ : 



>• ^ >■ s: 



coro^^rj-^r^cNj coco 
nir)HNc\nonro Ocm 
cOrHCOrj-uo^Hrj- r--co 



> ^ >■ 'z. > s > : 



co cn co o co CD cn i 

LO O O CO «* CM O I 

*3" LO O LO CM CO r^ « 

<—* '—i CM i 



> 2: > ^ > ^ 



r— CD i— 



149 



3 

o 
U 



qj w^ 



.5 > 

1/3 .- 

U 2* 



3 
£ 



c\j «^r o t— ilthjd m «^ 



CD^DOHHro i— iro 



™ CTiCO ID^D C\J ^ OO UD 



Q l0 2 



NIT) MOC^^t O Oi 
UD <3" CO CO N CO CON 



. oo <\j m •— i CO OO 



rO rH ^ in ^o I 



q\ I I I i Vl_! u J v^_» I ^ Vi_l 



<^t- co r-» i— i ud < 



«d- on 

UD LO 



oro rotj- omxi cm in 
ocn yDC^ crio> ud co 
^NOcoino cm r-- 



i co UD UD ^Dlo 
CO CM 



rHcrnDin^THCoroinr-. cm <* 

CSJ t— 1 CM C\J i— I i— I ■— 1 



IDCOCTiCOOO^^COO OLO 



ON^MiooONOn cm on 
yDLnrs<ti£nDCMD^Dco r*> in 



cm ud co *d- on co r-- •— i •— i <^- o r-» 



. on m LD r-» CO i 



<=3- CO 
<3- ■* 



O m 

CM LO 



co cn 



NNCoc\jrNr-.<tcO'3-"t ion 



OiOOlNHLnMOOiD Lf)N 
rHrvNOCOCMLnin^co UD m 
O^cvjNfOixx^inroco "d- >— i 



ON LT) 

co r-» 



.—I CO CM CO CM -— I i— i CNJ 

Ol m UD CTi »3- r-- UD m 

N^t'd-UION ON «d" 

co CM *d" m CM •— « m cm 

<3- m m n n on o in 

ON CM CM CJ1 ON UD >— 'ON 

on in m ud r-- i— i <jud 

unrocNj«^-r~-.r-H «3- ud 

CO CO CO CO CO ON coco 

CO CNJ CM ON UD CM r-.LO 

N «-H ON LO ON LT1 CO UD 

HCsJHrHrHr-l «— t .— I 

SPNlOCOO'n* OH) 

«— i -y- -^- ro cn ^f mo 

m co co co cm cm mm 



rorOHcoCO n cnj^t 
UDONCOU3H OO 

r-- cm <3- >— ' on on CNjm 



cnj co rf un cnj co 



on co r-. ud co n 

cmcohh cnj m 



in ro uD co ^3- r— I 

ud in «d- cnj ud lo 



ud *r on co un CNJ 
O CNJ CO O O CNJ 



CON ^ CO <— t CNJ 



on r-- ■* 
r-* r— co 


CO 

CO 


O CO 

co n 


o «-• CO 


in 


«* o 


"5f CD ON 

CNJ CNJ •— i 


r-» 


m o 

CNJ CNJ 



f- 2 



1/lOCSJN ON CO 



O CO LD O LD CO 
CDrHfOin CNJ id 
ud <3- r- CNJ «S± UD 



<-h CPut roiD 



i m «— • «d- cnj cnj 



> m m m co lo o 



co cnj m •—* 



on ud <=r cm cm .— iox>oh 

.— < i-h lO LO LDN 



o 


n 


^ 


U 




<— 


u 


s 


O 


X 




u 





sr 


£ 


< 


■ 


c 


e 


73 


o 


ff> 


Z 


r- 


"53 


3 


C 




eg 


vO 





CI 



ro in ^d rv ro O) 


CNJ CNJ 


ro t— • cnj in cnj 


O UD 


i-H CNJ t-H 


^ r-4 



incooMn hin hid <j n 

CNJ in i-H .—I .-H i— I t— i 



o r--. 

CO CNJ 

CO i— I 



CM «* 

O ro 

ud in 



CM CM 

CO i— I 



co in 

ON UD 

CO CM 



CD ^t N i-< no r» ON CM 

in CM CM CM •— I CO ON CO 

CM «— < CM i— I 



CJCON r- i<g-lf) CO <3" 
m cm on co •— It— < UD CM 



O UD •-< 



cr> *j- CO ON NCO 
CM CM «d- co N- UD 
CM CM CM CM 



rrj- O r— I O in O 
cn UD CM CM i-H CO 
i— I CM CM CM 



CM CO N CO ON «— I 
O r-H CO N CO ON 
ON Ln «—t ON UD 



cm CO ud O r- cm ino 

CDCO^-tr-.^j-CM UD CO 

i-h in cnj on ^j- ins 



<^-cMincMCor--.cMcr>CM'=r ud «^ 

r-ONOUDOO-— I'd" fHtn CDUD 

cm m cm •— ntHro in «3- 



n O 

<DN I-- 

-—I ^1- 



«3- ud cm cm *— * on r^r^ 
<— moio-^m co cmco 

in CM O CM CO i— i ONUD 



•3" <DO ro <3- ON 

in co lo on o r*-. 

co Kt (si rH in 



w 


a 


j: 


U 


01 


<— , 


> 


o 


u 

© 


3J 
< 


o 





« < 



CMOONCMUD1--. ONCM 



coocoin«-HCO ^r cd 



I ON CO CO O CO CO 



OHrHlfJCO^iJfOVOM 



LO CO 


m lo id in o in 


CM ON 


35.6 
45.8 
26.1 
85.9 


<=r in 


ON UD 
co <d- 


<\i enco N- LO CN 

CO CO CO i— 1 CM CO 


cm m 
co in 


CM o 

ro in 



- <3" ON CD i— I 



. O UD LO t-H 



o 

< 



H «* 



r-.r--<3-r^r-^H oolo 

lo in co «— < cm in udcm 

<—* UD CO «d" hs CM t-H 

-— t CM <-* 



r^CM«3-C0'— irOCMCMUDCTi CD<^ 

on.— icMOr-^o-— tinoocM ono 

COCAj«3-r-ICOrAJLf)CVJ^tCJ HO 



CM ON 
CD UD 

r- co 



UD'— i^OUDCD US'— I 

o oin rsjco ro uD^a- 
co co n U3 <j ro on 



LO ON ■— I N UD UD 

t— * CM UD CO r-» UD 

cm in co co in co 



s: si s: z s: z 



; >• 2: =» ^ >■ : 



>■ e > e: > 



150 



LT) LO i — I t-H 1 



OO^Oi 
O CD CM CO 



O t— I T-i CO «tf- | 
O CM CM 



cOHiDco<HNOi/) cn lo 
cm co t— i 



cn r-- o o en cm o--h 

CO CM CM CO CM f— < fO C\J 



LO UD kD -^ LT) *d" 
<Hi£i IT) <d" «3" 



inocOH to o 



HMLnNCOOnMcn r-~ r-» 

CMi— I CO CM t— Ir-ICSJ m CMCM 



Cn r-- CO LO Cn t— I OH 
CM t— * LD CM CO CM «^CM 



o ^r 

CM CM 



cm cn cn o r-- Kfr 

CM HCM ^ CM CO 



in <too «d- ^ 
«d" "d* "d" «— I «3r ro 



CTioicNjonfiors cn o 



o 

u 



i— • LO CM i— I 0"i O OC\J 
IDUJHHOIO Cn Cn 



LO CM 


CTi O 


Nnroro 


o r~~~ 


LO CO 


r-- co 


to «— • r-. cr> 


r-- Cn 



cm en r-. co co to 
t-H LD «d" to en CO 



N N W O O CM UD ^t •— I r-» 
COU3NO<-Hr-irsC\J COO 



UD^-^-mO^ 



tO «sj- CH t^f 



d> »> 



.5 > 



Cfl 


M 


0) 


u 


en 




« 


— 


u 


oc 
e 


- — - 


'E 


,> 


3 


5 


-a 




u 




K 


z 


o 




O. 



<U 


5 


O 




X! 


to 


01 


ca 


> 


u 




U- 


t— 


© 


© 


to 




V 


o 


M 


s 


< 

-a 


1 


c 


c 


E9 


o 


S> 


Z 


r~ 


■a 


e 


c 




03 


vO 


, . 


ot 



e£ 


■c 

o 


VO LO i—! I CO CO tO 
CO CO CO CO CO CO 


OO LO 
00 CO 


c 
n 


Si 

< 


CO CO O LO LO CM 


<d" CM 


•a 


ocOHincco 

i— 1 i— 1 CM «— < CM •— I 


O CO 

CM ■— 1 



■5 < 



H .2 

a 



Q 


— 














ea 




U 


o 




rj 



«d" CM LO «3" tO tO LOCO 



MfO ncji CON CMCTt 
COr-HLDOcOtO CMCO 

co<t tnco con r-.cn 



to cm *d- .—< cn ( 



co co r-- -3- to r-- 


LD <3" 


"3" O 


r- t-t r-. o 


UO CM 


CO CO 


CM 


.— I CM 


i—l CO 



CO CO 
CM CM 
CO CM 



«d* to 

CTl t-H 

to to 



i— t co co en hid 



CO LO «3- 

■HHINJ 


cn 


CM 
CM 


00 


LD tO h-. 


*3- 


CM 


,_ 


r~- O0 lo 
CM CM UO 


to 


to 

"3- 


LO 



co to i— i en en lo 
co co cm r^ lo to 

CO t-H LO CO OO LO 



cm lo i—i cm en to 



r-* «d- oo co 

OCXl^rO 



Lf) NHH; LO t— < 

o co to en to co 
*d- r-. i— i co lo to 



uocMtoococncMLn «d- o 



O^rocMcn^coao «d- «3- 



NOLn^CMCMLOO LOtO 



HNN^Nn^H "d* LO 
HOiOHrOO^H OCM 
CMtOtOOLDOKff'O COO 



O CO CO LO 00 CO 



O rHCMN CM CO 



CO cm en t-H r-. co 



c *•< i-H 



t-H CO 



r-» en 


CO —< 


lo co cm ^a- 


r-H O 


co r-- 


LD HNCM 


CO CO 


i — ' 


< — 1 



r-». CO LO CM CM ■ 



tO CM LO CO t-H O 
CO CM «3" «d- CON 
CO t— I CO t-H 



en lo co i— i to co .-ho 



<K 


to 


U 


C3 


■C 


u 


a 


<— 


> 



to 


o 
*-> 


01 
04 
< 


o 





ocono«^o 

O CO r- O co co 
tO ■—• CO CM O0 CM 



CO to 


CM CM 


co t-H lo r-. 


00 OO 


CM CO 


CM r-. 


o en to co 


to r-* 


to CO 


en co 


CO CO CM 


CO CO 



n cTin o «3- en 
lo «^j- co r^. en t-H 

n tDCM H LO CO 



i— 1 i— 1 LO tO CO CM 


t-H ,-H 


-H CO 

co «d- 
co to 


lo r^ 

.— 1 <& 
CM CM 


17.8 
23.5 
25.1 
24.0 


crt o 

CM <XJ 


25.9 

29.6 

24.1 

241.1 


i*-» r-. 


cn •— i en en en r-. 

t-H CO CM CM CM t-H 


cn lo 

CM >d- 


lo r-. 

CM LO 


co to en en co t-H 


cn lo 


cn cn 

tO LO 
O LO 


CO t-H 

^f CO 
CO «h^ 


30.2 
48.6 
41.9 
49.1 


■3- O 
ro «3- 


44.3 
65.0 
75.8 
88.3 


O CO 


co lo o en -d- cm 
cn co lo to en to 


r-» cn 

CO fH 


en to 

^J- LO 



r^ «— icoh-.toor-.t- < coen 
NCOLnocncrifnr-s to^ 
t-H r^cocM ^rcotoco 



OOCOCOt-HtOLOLOCD oco 



in«t nococo i 



CM t-H 



O 

< 



en o cm co *t o 

NNCONOtJ 
CO CM <d" CM CM LO 



tO t-H 


to cn 


to O to -dr 


CM "d- 


*d- CO 


O CO 


tO ■—< CM «H- 


en lo 


to CO 


H «3- 


CO t-H CO CO 


to "d" 



r-» lo o en r-. *d- 

N tJ-rHIXl oo o 

r-- en co to o to 



t— icor—cotooOt-HLO 

tOCMLOOLOt— <COO 

CNJ H H l£) n H io in 



: > ^ >■ e: > s: 



> s >• s >- : 



: > s > s 



. — CD 



151 



A 



<— i cm xj- cm en <zt 

cm *-* 



-— < CM .-H LO 



CD LO CTi LO CH 1X3 



en en to en CO c\J 
i— i en i-H cm t— i 



COCMOJOl£)COt\HDU:i 

rH rHIM r- H i-H .— It— tCSJ 



Ln lo 

CM <^J" 



oj co m cnj -=j- lo 



LO LO t— 1 LD fOH 
CM rH CM CM CO CM 



tLOOCnenO-— «0<— 'CM O xj- 

iCMcn<d-enT— .<3-cmcM'— i nc\j 



3 

O 

U 



Q o« 



O en ld en CO o 
co r*N en ^t CO LD 



CTirH LO n O •— « 

inio rvcri r-~ co 



rOCNJLniDi-iNmCDN^t Cn LO 

^ rv (u o in m in ro us c lold 



<* CO 
CNJ OO 



<X> -^ 





w 






co 


LO 


I*-. 


•-H 


CTi 


LO 


CO 


xj- 


rH 


CNJ 


in r-x. 


CO CNJ 






f£ 


C 


CNJ 


O 


LT) 


CTi 


LO 


,_, 


in 




o 


,_( 


LO x* 


r- r^ 


0^ 


C 




— 


CO 


r-» 


CO 


.: 


co en 


CO 


CX, 


en en 


CO CO 


CO CO 


i 


1* 






























3* 


< 


B 

n 


u 


CO 


-• 


O 


LT) 


i-x. 


CNJ 


r- 


CTi 


Lf) 


CNJ 


CO CO 


en co 






-o 




CO 


en 




1 




^t 


CNI 


Lf) 


Ln 


«rf 


r- 1 CD 


en r-x. 


i— 




J-J 


< 


CNJ 


CO 


CNJ 


r H 


CNJ 


«— ' 


CNJ 


•■ • 


<— ' 


•— ' 


CNJ CNJ 


t— i «— i 



■— iLocncNj^rcncDO'— «lo r-x. o 



. en lo rx. cn lo o co •—< x?- 
>oor^-Ln<3-«3-«3-ro lo lo 



.5 > 



Vi 


n 


0> 


--> 


y. 




a 


j. 


: , 


;i 




B 


— 


"C 


** 


S 


~ 


Q 
-a 




n 




• 


/ 


s 




a. 



S o 

o. 



LO CO 

en i— i 
en ld 



co CNJ r-x r-x, lo en 

en r--. ir> r-» oi «qj- 

cnj co oo «3- o en 

CM en O xj- en co 



co en lo en en ld 
r— ld cnj «— • O r-x 
cnj r-x o en en lo 



i en cnj en *3- 



oocooincMrvrooo ld xj- 



cnLDrx-cNjenLncnencncn rx. lo 
cMLOLOCMOLOLncnr — i_o cNjen 



< LD en LO CNJ LD CNJ r-- i 



CO CO 
LO CNJ 

m lo 



■= a 



JS 


X 


V 


w 


> 


u 






u 


3 


o 


X 




it 


o 


01 


% 


< 

-a 




c 


B 


03 


O 


3s 


z 


r- 


■a 


s 
<*-, 


B 




a 


^5 


, , 


61) 



c — 



lo en 


■jHinro 


en ^j- 


cnj lo i— i en 


en «3- 


IDLfl'd-HHCOONnH 


x^ CNJ 


r-x. co 


O LO 


i— i .— i t— i en 


CNJ xj- 


CNJ CO 


cnj en 


i-H HinLO^n 




O en 


co en 






r— t t— 1 


*— « <—* 


«— • 


•— t CNJ 


«3- CNI 



LD LO 
O *3~ 
CNJ CO 



oo ,— . 



en xj- 
o co 

LD en 



«— i en 



i-i i CNJ 



en-=d-cncNj«^rLoencnr-.o cnjo 

en LDCNjcnr-.ocOLOLn ld xj- 

i—it—t en en 



enLO'^-cnLncNicor-.cNjcn CNjen 

<— I *d-CNJxJ-«^-r-.LOxJ-t— 1 CN1LO 

CNJ i—i 



OMlTiNNNHhhh OCO 

enT-HCOLOCoencNjencnLO enco 

i-H i-H -J" t-H 



CO *3" 

co r-. 
lo CNJ 



\2- Cl. 



en en 


en lo ld o 


LO LO 


r--. lo co •— i 


lo I--. 


en rv 


■*0ON -3- 


CNJ CNJ 


co <— < «jd en 


LO o 


en r-. 


HHNN 


en «3- 


CNJ fH LO i— 1 


CO en 



Looor-xcno«— icocnLO «=j- cz> 
cNicOxj-^j-cNjencO'-DvOcZ) <j-en 
cnj cNjCNimcNjcot— i ro cm r^cn 



en ld 

lo CO 



> 

ha 

o 

w 

o 



o 



u 



01 



cni r-x rx. o 



i ld en en 



NHCM^HHroonco 



«3- co cm en cr> •— < 



ld xj- en «3- en cr> 



cq 




o 


LO 


CO 


CO 


evi 


en 


O^ 


CO 


03 


en 


en 


yn 


«~> 


«* 


— 


<! 


xt 


o 


<ht 


Px- 


LO 




^r 


en 


r- 


CM 


LD CO 




c ■' 






**" ' 


CNI 








•^ 






' * 


«d- 






'^' , 


C> 




SL 






























~n 


C 


CNJ 


l-x. 


LO 


•xt 


r*s 


rri 


CNI 


CM 


CO 


m 


LO 


o^ 


CT> 


CM 




■a 


CO CO 


P-x 


CO CD 


Lf) 


a) 


^T 


xt 






CO 


*t 


\r> 




e 








- i 


en 






LO 




rn 






U 1 


— 


i? 




* 



























O CO 

en en 



enLoencO"— <LDLOcoen^-< in >^ 



rx.rx.LDLOLOCM«— +CMCMLO cm n 
i— tOx3-LOOx3-cncOrx.CM rx,CNI 

eni— "x3-encOxj-rx.LOLoen COCO 



CD CO 
rH «;3- 

LO O 



: > ^ >■ 2: > : 



152 



IDCTiONCMOlDrH CM CO 



c\joiHorortHC\j Lorn 

CM t— I t— I CM CO HW 



rNOOCMCM^tvDroco^O r— *-3r 
cxi 1—1 •— ' co cm cm 



co«-d-cn.— <co«=-foco om 



i r-- rH c\j in Oi CO m mco 

cm .— i <— < l-H 



.ldoouoi— «crtkD-— tcocTi cm r- 
<-3- i— < «3- «— it— i rn cm r- 1 cm cm 



HOHHCn' 
rHCJCO 



OLnt^>LnLo<x>cricNj oo 
cm HHHn noon ro cm 



^a^oc\jLncocrico<-o«— i en co 
<— i<-3-en«d-cocMCM'— ih»- < oo cm 



= rf a 



rHrH^C^rH^^DU: C\JCO 

^^r-.cnr---U3r--U3 r-» r-» 



r-.«-d-uDr--cococncM ud r-- 

IDr- ICO"^f-CTiU3UDO~t CO *-D 



cvjcocnoco^-cocTiLOLn 
cooai«3-uDcnr-vCO«*r^ 



U o 



oh ai<* co o 



O Lf) CTi IDOM 



i m CT» UD I 



i rH og n ^- <^- CX)l 



i^corotor- 1 cm nai 



CTiroc\JO<^-O^J-CO LOCO 

c\jcocr><3->-Hir><3-Ln co --J - 



ivcmcoloctiO^'- ictilo w> ud 



in^oincriLnrocM^i 



«-3" CO 

en «•*■ 



. r-. Ln <^- co >— • <— i loo 
en en 



CTir-dHOi-iONI^Odl 






3 

a 



5 o 



NwtnoncMH^o ud o 
en o o >h in co ■- «in ud ud 



S HHnin^f 



o -=j- en -—i 

r— I MH 



nOrHCMNrsiHrn cm cm 
■— < co co <=j- er> cm oo .— < cm ud 
r-.c\jr--cnuDcncocM om 



f-HCTiU3U3LOCVIC3r~-.r-.C0 Cn CM 
Lr>cnooco<-tCMCM«-3-UD<--r «— ■ lo 
vr3uOLOrOr-HrOt-Hcri«-3-LO en r-» 



t— 1 CM t— I 



i— i Of\J 



u 



^^co^rt^NCMfi ro co 

CTi CM ^- *3- ro 

■— ' C\J CM C\J 



o 



si 



" o 

c — 



CMcncouD«-3-uDcn«--]- ro m 

i— i tHMaiLO^Mn coo 

t-H r-t OO CM 



uot— iLOU3Ln«-d-r--*-j- 

C-ffOMrHHOm 

t-H CO "d" ^ h CO «* 



CM LO 
UD co 

i-H O 



r-.Ln«--ruDuD<-d-uDcn co «^- 

•jrHr-irOiDCsJCOiO «— » «-t 

<— I ""3- CM r- 1 CO on 



r-cococncMcor--r--uD*-j- inn 

NfO«-f<t'H(\jNNC^«t on 
t-H i— I t— I CM CO CM 









Nr-coCTiroLncoin 



i en co co <— i i 



LO r-» 
.-■ co 



LflONOCMCOCMO <"J- UD 



l O O oo cn oo O cm COO 



CO UD CM O CO l 



010"ii— I r- CTi CM CTi CTi 
cor^CMuDOOCOooco 
i— < ^"f- CO U3 i— < O UO 



co r*. 

CO uD 
CM UD 



uDCMUDr--cMr--ooco r--<-j- 
ain^irnxicO'-JTv «-3- uo 

r-l UD CO CM i— i LT1 



CO hitin^ roHN enco r-» uD 
coO'JcOLnirnrnDcom cm ud 

CM •— < CM CM «-T CO t— I *-J" UD 



=» e: > s: > e: 



-r- 1- "O 



i -fZ r— 



153 



irnncin 
cm o •-* 



LO O 
<-* CM 






n hsOvJ ! 



en <3" co lo cm O P-. lo 
I i — * < — • cm «— * C\J .— I 



■— in cm in en o ro«d- 

HMOJN r-H i 1 . 1 



C\J CM 



tnO^NH LO CD 



iDiDOuDyDC\inc\ji£)ai p- «=j- 
co *d- «— i lo «a- r- >— • «— • «=j- r- co^r 



22 >-h in in o «t csj p-. cm 

E eg i 

O"— m c\i ro c\j <d- eg co cm 



CM CM 
LO CXJ 



■ ON CM ' 

> t— i ld i 



•^-LOLOcooNfOLOONf 
O'jinmoiD'a-Hi 



3 



a 2 



CO LO CM CM OX LO 

r- en p- en p-. p- 



IX) CO 
CO CNJ 



cnj cm r—i r- co cm 

Hvtcoo O ro 



cQLOLOLOcoLOLOOLnoN o^r 
NrHoicoNoco^Dfoo cncn 



0> 2 



G#3 

u 



« < 



lb 

2 S 



in hi£co con •— < <^r 



i— < CM CO LO CO CD CM LO 

yDCO in-o omd CO r- 



I LO co co •— i lo LO 



CO CO <3" CM *d" CM LO P-- 

co •— < lo lo *d- co cncD 

LO CD CO CD »— * CO (-i rt 

cncor--cocoLO ocm 



HNNO CO CM 



CM LO 
CO CO 


CD CO 

CO CO 


.— 1 ON 

CO p- 


LD 

CO 


cc 


CM 
CO 


oc 


■—i o 
ON en 


KT CO 


CO LO 


co *^j- 


*d- 


«d- 


CO 


«d- 


LO CO 


«3" CM 
CM CM 


CM 

cm 


oc 


CM CM 
CM CM 


CTi 


C--J 

CM 


CM 


CM 
CM 


«sT LO 


O CO 


LD 


en 


ON <^f 


CO 


r- 


,_, 


LD 


^H ,-H 


«3- co 
*d" CO 


LO 


CO 


p-> en 

CO CO 


CO 


LD 

CO 


LD 
CO 


CO 
CO 


CD ON 
CO CM 


LO «-H 
LO O 

r-» LO 


LO i— I 
ON <3- 
LO LO 


«-h en co lo 
r- r- «3- r- 
CM LO ^j- CO 


en 


LO 
LO 
^1 


*d" CM 
O O 
CM i— I 



CDLorNCOcoLO«^-^j-ocM cocn 



o •— « t — i , — <coloocmcmoo en ■ 



en r — i — i LO «^r cm lo < 



ooocdcolO'— i m r-tn 
cor--coLDCMLOcOLOLorN 
p- cm >— ' c\j «? ud co c\j n co 



CD «sr *=*- -— • <3" U3 



LO CO LO •—* CM 



■= Q 



> 



LO CM 

co en 

CD r-, 



-W 4t 



s 


^x. 


?. 


< 

-a 




B 


c 


3 


o 


3* 


z 


t- 


-e 


s 


e 




W 


sO 




Dl 


> 


B 

■3 


" 


c 



cm «=r 
co co 

LO CM 



~ a. 



.— t p- co cm co r-. i — lo 

CM LO LO LO CO P- LDCO 

NH^rcvjNn on r- 



CD co 
CM CM 



CM O 


p» i-H 


o lo «— • r- 


•— ■ CM 


LD LO 


cm p- 


LO O 


CO CO CO LO 


i-h <d- 


O CO 


i-H «tf- 


CM CM 


CM 


CO •— < 


CM ■-< 



r- lo 


*3" LO 


CvJOOH 


CM i-H 


CD LO 


CO p- 


p- i— < 


LO CO CM CM 


CO CD 


r-H CO 


f-i CO 


en en 


r- co ro cm 


CD LO 


CO LD 



lOloco.— iooOlO'— | Onlo h m 

COCOOON COCOLOCO "d - ON 

CM >— < CO CM 



«a- cm *^ co co < — icn^j-cno 

Nr-icvjrocOrHLn^cO'd- 



LOCMLOCMi— ««^-LDLOCO^J- I— I P^ 
CO-— < CM CM CO i— < CO CM LO P- «d- «s- 

(D COtJ HrH rHCSJOJrH LOCO 



IS 


u 


& 


<— 


> 


I 


o 


o 
< 



c 

< 



CO CO CO •—* LO CM 



LO CO 

ON CM 
CM CO 



<—t CO 
CD LO 



i — "cocMCDcoLn cocn 



en o co lo lo CD 



on k? en co CD •— i 
lo on lo o r— o 


P- o 
LO CD 


r-. cm 
en CD 

CM LD 


CM «tf" 

en ^j- 


LD CO cm r-. 
LO P- LD LO 


LO i— < 
LO P- 


973 

656 
413 
,185 
663 


^J- CO 

l-H CO 
CO CM 


r - - h 
CD LO 


<* o 

LO CO 


,159 
580 
477 

ill 


LO •— « 

co en 

LD CO 


r * 


CM t— I 


CM U0 


1— ( .— » 


«— < 


i— l 



t-« CO 
CO i-H 
<5f CM 



i — i LD ^ CO CD ON <3" I 



.MN ^3" UD 



<a* <— "LOCOONONCMCOCMON 



COCMCOCO«3-Cn^HCMCMLO CO CM 

encncocnp-CMCDLOP~-p- co lo 

O vt 1 CO CO CM r- H^COCOt— i CD UN 



> e: > e 



2: ^ 2: ^ ^ ^ ^ 



154 



.= Q 



A 



.Lnr--.i£)COOc^<3-cr>c\jco oco 
ico<cj- co <y~> <D r—i t— ILO 



iX)Lor~-.cnr~--ocrim«d-cO'— <rOi— icsj en c\J 

rHfO H^HC O C\J^j-VJDC\JC\Jr-tUD HM 



HrjixJin^tujrsiMCMCMnHr-.'tf en en 
roiric\jrocNJ<tiDCMroroiHi — i i— t m co <\J 



e 
U 



oic\jooaic\i^cr>'^co'jD'-ic\jf\j ^j-o 
Nro^LnLncrirocONNrocn^i^ co 01 



■J-', 


3^ 




r^ 


Q 


X 




t-- 


0) 


3^ 



O o 



"DlDCO'd- CO i 



CNJ^-COCOOMXI'^OCnOCMNm. 



CO CTi 

CO «— i 



ex 

c 

a 



icocooinHinin^ «— i CO 



u^-^CJ^CnJODt— iuoI^CM^CO^CTiCnJ ton 

OnNimOCOrHHq-^-ooNioO O •— < 

roixiLncsi^j-cxj'-H^j-cO'^DOLncOLO cm co 

c\j ud c\j c\j co ■— i r^-LD 



r-- r-- 

co <^J- 
r-- co 



> 



-w 01 



o 


ox 


£ 


< 

-o 




B 


= 


ca 


o 


3\ 


Z 


t~~ 


■a 




c 




C3 


*© 


, , 


M 



^ r-H r-i 



Lnai'^-cMcriOcNj'd-i-icorvCTi'-'O ai c\j 

i— li— l^tC0r-.CMCOCOCOC\J i— I O 

rHM CO «3" 



»X> CO 

LO CO 

cr> «^- 



r-- co 
r-. co 



Z2- CU 



■^UDfTiOrON^DiXunCOlDr-iON 
OiNrOCMCvlMNiHrHttmNNCO 
•— ■ CO 00 i— < -— < i— I 



LO CO 

en CO 

CO CO 



01 


i» 


> 


O 


Urn 
O 


01 
St 

< 



) Csj O CO r-. O i 



'OCOH <XJ i-l 



r^r^cor--.kr)0'53-csj'*r^^-icor-.cri csjen ion 
Lnrococoorocr>'X)coiX)r^cocO'X) cm ro dch 

iDC\JCOCOuDCO<tMMrOrvrHO0C\J CO.— I .— i r— i 



o 

OX 
< 



cnrNnaiHNCNjcoooiDinNO co<-d 

CSJi— i COCTiM rHCM MOJ H 0<JD 



> ^ > e: > : 



CO LO 

>-H LO 



155 



RANKINGS FOR THE 33 JUDICIAL DISTRICTS BASED UPON 







PERCENT DISPOSITION 


TO 


TOTAL 


CASELOAD 














July 1, 


1978- J 


une 30 1979 












Judicial 






Superio 


Court 










District Court 






Civil 




Criminal 




Estates Special 

Proceedings 


Civil 


Crim 


nal 


Judicial 


Felonies 


Misdemeanors 


Motor Vehicle 


Non-Motor 


Division 


District 




















Vehicle 


I 


1 


20 


2 


14 




28 


30 




8 


10 


12 




2 


24 


20 


27 




15 


31 




1 


1 


1 




3 


31 


9 


16 




11 


19 




26 


20 


27 




4 


9 


33 


8 




18 


22 




11 


27 


26 




9 


30 


16 


11 




29 


20 




25 


19 


25 




6 


33 


32 


33 




24 


32 




22 


11 


16 




7 


13 


1/ 


19 




4 


26 




7 


24 


19 




8 


4 


6 


3 




12 


8 




29 


6 


3 


II 


9 


22 


30 


30 




16 


13 




19 


22 


11 




LO 


1 


28 


21 




12 


18 




33 


30 


28 




11 


29 


18 


28 




22 


27 




in 


25 


13 




i,: 


12 


8 


17 




5 


5 




12 


14 


10 




13 


18 


23 


18 




26 


3 3 




32 


26 


15 




14 


21 


5 


6 




25 


23 




19 


29 


24 




[5A 


19 


25 


25 




2 


7 




2 


8 


7 




15B 


3 


11 


2 




:•'. 


11 




20 


12 


4 




16 


16 


27 


24 




8 


9 




14 


3 


17 


III 


17 


15 


12 


26 




6 


21 




4 


17 


14 




18 


28 


19 


1 




21 


3 




6 


32 


39 




19A 


25 


4 


IS 




7 


4 




17 


13 


2 




19B 


23 


3 


23 




9 


14 




13 


15 


21 




;•[) 


32 


14 


12 




'■'. 


24 




24 


7 


20 




21 


10 


1 


7 




14 


1 




3 


23 


23 




22 


7 


26 


5 




13 


16 




Ki 


16 


22 




;■■; 


5 


21 


10 




3 


6 




18 


9 


5 


IV 


24 


6 


29 


31 




30 


29 




9 


28 


31 




25 


8 


24 


20 




2 7 


15 




lb 


4 


6 




26 


27 


13 


13 




20 


12 




31 


33 


33 




27A 


17 


15 


9 




17 


10 




21 


5 


8 




27B 


14 


7 


4 




1 


2 




5 


18 


18 




28 


2 


10 


29 




19 


l 7 




28 


2 


9 




;"t 


26 


22 


22 




10 


25 




23 


31 


29 




in 


11 


31 


32 




11 


28 




27 


21 


32 



156 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 
PERCENT DISPOSITION TO TOTAL CASELOAD 

July 1, 1978-June30, 1979 











Superior Court 








District Court 






Civil 




Criminal 


Estates 


Special 
Proceedings 


Civil 


Criminal 




Felonies 


Misdemeanors 


Motor Vehicle 


Non-Motor 


District 


County 
















Vehicle 


1 


Camden 


79 


18 


36 


1 


17 


6, 


27 


5 




Chowan 


63 


16 


3 


74 


96 


67 


16 


25 




Currituck 


75 


1 


11 


42 


67 


66 


06 


35 




Dare 


76 


37 


85 


98 


90 


97 


92 


96 




Gates 


15 


78 


50 


84 


98 


4 


70 


1 




Pasquotank 


11 


5 


17 


25 


;' 3 


7 


6 


L4 




Perquimans 


64 


6 


38 


60 


60 


■K, 


-6! 


61 


2 


Beaufort 


36 


19 


56 


51 


97 


2 


9 


11 




Hyde 


84 


97 


62 


58 


71 


24 


3 


19 




Martin 


26 


89 


79 


33 


37 


10 


5 


12 




Tyrrel 1 


99 


100 


94 


70 


34 


1,'! 


7 






Washington 


95 


42 


73 


28 


86 


1 


1 


3 


3 


Carteret 


92 


81 


92 


31 


6:5 


'M 


97 


93 




Craven 


8 3 


10 


13 


27 


45 


54 


30 


6:: 




Paml ico 


44 


4 


53 


72 


69 


1 ■; 


2 


2 




Pitt 


57 


40 


48 


48 


24 


61 


66 


72 


4 


Dupl in 


90 


53 


75 


39 


68 


40 


f-,9 


83 




Jones 


34 


3 


11 


32 


74 


66 


32 


6 




Onslow 


58 


13 


8 


83 


50 


72 


78 


50 




Sampson 


2 


44 


29 


21 


19 


6 


71 


92 


5 


New Hanover 


52 


68 


24 


80 


33 


75 


49 


66 




Pender 


LOO 


91 


80 


16 


93 


53 


8 1 


55 


6 


Bertie 


98 


00, 


88 


68 


84 


77 


22 


0,0 




Halifax 


94 


9-1 


95 


79 


92 


79 


62 


56 




Hertford 


78 


51 


90 


50 


83 


71 


84 


49 




Northampton 


85 


85 


98 


57 


64 


31 


12 


4 


7 


Edgecombe 


56 


15 


14 


19 


62 


14 


60 


29 




Nash 


62 


25 


40 


35 


77 


6 1 


64 


45 




Wilson 


19 


87 


87 


3 


39 


60 


87 


78 


8 


Greene 


81 


1,0 


60 


7 


76 


20 


37 


16 




Lenoir 


7 


2 


5 


24 


42 


161 


14 


10 




Wayne 


25 


46 


9 


63 


1? 


89 


48 


47 


9 


Frankl in 


46 


90 


78 


94 


55 


62 


38 


63 




Granvil le 


20 


55 


69 


6 


11 


23 


40 


8 




Person 


93 


86 


9) 


76 


81 


92 


57 


48 




Vance 


32 


(.1 


47 


29 


56 


16 


6 1 


24 




Warren 


86 


76 


;■',(, 


20 


20 


'If, 


98 


88 


10 


Wake 


5 


73 


51 


85 


44 


94 


89 


74 


11 


Harnett 


35 


57 


,'0 


52 


94 


90 


47 


46 




Johnston 


96 


49 


58 


69 


13 


06, 


79 


76 




Lee 


17 


60 


,", ■; 


87 


70 


73 


72 


22 


12 


Cumberland 


40 


29 


46 


14 


8 


45 


55 


38 




Hoke 


23 


45 


M, 


81 


73 


19 


35 


90 


13 


Bladen 


61 


/l 


84 


47 


47 


67 


75 


37 




Brunswick 


42 


90 


42 


0/ 


99 


100 


50 


61 




Col umbus 


51 


11 





49 


88 


58 


77 


57 


14 


Durham 


53 


26 


16 


73 


54 


57 


88 


65 


15A 


Alamance 


49 


00 


(,■', 


10 


25 


13 


31 


32 


15B 


Chatham 


39 


80 


1 


45 


49 


17 


8 


23 




Orange 


8 


oo, 


■;o 


78 


22 


84 


73 


26 


16 


Robeson 


37 


43 


M 


26 


14 


46 


43 


34 




Scotland 


69 


•->■ 


00 


61 


79 


6! 


4 


85 



157 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 
PERCENT DISPOSITION TO TOTAL CASELOAD 

July 1,1978-June 30, 1979 











Superior Court 








District Court 






Civil 




Criminal 


Estates 


Special 
Proceedings 


Civil 


Crim 


inal 




Felonies 


Misdemeanors 


Motor Vehicle 


Non-Motor 


District 


County 
















Vehicle 


17 


Caswell 


22 


95 


89 


17 


72 


38 


63 


73 




Rockingham 


27 


31 


59 


12 


63 


15 


65 


43 




Stokes 


48 


22 


19 


56 


31 


5 


46 


40 




Surry 


65 


5? 


70 


53 


27 


32 


36 


62 


18 


Guil ford 


72 


56 


7 


66 


9 


30 


95 


86 


L9A 


Cabarrus 


82 


24 


52 


34 


49 


82 


66 


16 




Rowan 


30 


27 


21 


23 


5 


26 


28 


20 


19B 


Montgomery 


97 


63 


81 


43 


66 


87 


74 


87 




Randolph 


41 


14 


57 


30 


32 


21 


41 


21 


20 


Anson 


88 


8 


45 


95 


75 


19 


10 


17 




Moore 


91 


69 


37 


75 


15 


42 


11 


33 




Richmond 


87 


36 


49 


89 


95 


98 


86 


58 




Stanly 


55 


7 


33 


96 


57 


47 


58 


91 




Union 


89 


72 


31 


44 


26 


49 


16 


27 


21 


Forsyth 


33 


20 


26 


41 


3 


22 


67 


59 


;.v 


Alexander 


9 


61 


2 


36 


53 


50 


13 


18 




Davidson 


50 


75 


6 


46 


65 


48 


53 


70 




Davie 


3 


39 


82 


9 


30 


56 


85 


82 




Iredel 1 


14 


68 


28 


37 


21 


34 


44 


41 


23 


Al leghany 


1 


77 


2 3 


1 i 


4 


70 


81 


39 




Ashe 


43 


12 


18 


15 


10 


3 


17 


7 




Wilkes 


24 


32 


34 


22 


16 


83 


39 


52 




Yadkin 


12 


84 


51 


4 


18 


11 


18 


9 


24 


Avery 


28 


83 


91 


71 


4 6 


9 


96 


71 




Madison 


71 


99 


97 


90 


89 


65 


34 


89 




Mitchell 


21 


74 


96 


100 


100 


18 


99 


67 




Watauga 


6 


30 


32 


82 


41 


59 


56 


99 




Yancey 


73 


35 


65 


2 


6(1 


33 


76 


31 


25 


Burke 


66 


59 


44 


55 


2 


44 


42 


13 




Caldwell 


SI 


17 


4 


62 


82 


52 


19 


54 




Catawba 


18 


66 


76 


86 


48 


64 


21 


30 


2(, 


Mecklenburg 


70 


41 


43 


65 


36 


88 


100 


100 


27A 


Gaston 


45 


47 


35 


54 


28 


68 


29 


42 


2 7U 


Cleveland 


74 


9 


15 


8 


6 


29 


59 


51 




Lincoln 


4 


67 


10 


11 


1 


16 


51 


68 


;■;■: 


Buncombe 


10 


34 


72 


64 


43 


80 


24 


44 


;"i 


Henderson 


68 


23 


22 


18 


87 


78 


93 


60 




McDowel 1 


80 


65 


64 


77 


52 


93 


94 


94 




Polk 


77 


82 


67 


59 


7 


41 


60 


77 




Rutherford 


51 


79 


71 


5 


29 


35 


45 


64 




Transylvania 


67 


33 


39 


88 


80 


76 


91 


79 


30 


Cherokee 


13 


88 


99 


93 


51 


99 


68 


84 




Clay 


16 


21 


27 


67 


38 


37 


54 


36 




Graham 


59 


62 


55 


38 


60 


86 


90 


69 




Haywood 


;■>< 


50 


74 


40 


36 


55 


82 


98 




Jackson 


47 


79 


77 


99 


78 


60 


25 


75 




Macon 


60 


96 


100 


91 


91 


95 


23 


97 




Swain 


w 


51 


12 


92 


56 


71 


80 


95 



158 



STATE LIBRARY OF NORTH CAROLINA 



3 3091 00748 2359 



'CSftfi 



■